Students have been abuzz over how artificial intelligence tools can do their homework and programmers over how these can increase their productivity or take away their jobs. As much as digitization has transformed the country in recent years, there is a widespread feeling that at some point around the horizon, AI shall rejig everything in even more fundamental, fantastic, and frightening ways. This is why deciding how the coming changes should be regulated is very important. TRAI has made a strong case for an independent statutory authority to ensure the responsible development and use of AI in the country, a global agency along similar lines shall likely be pitched at the G20 leaders’ summit, and interestingly even American MNC Microsoft has floated a blueprint for AI governance in India. The great size and diversity of its “data points” make India of great interest to all developers of AI technologies. But India is only at their receiving end, nowhere close to the US and China’s advances. Although lately, it is becoming obvious how much state censorship is encumbering China’s large language modeling, the country is still very much in the game with PhDs in fields related to AI, investments in AI chip hardware design, and domestic generative models like Wu Dao. The scientific accomplishments of India’s Chandrayaan mission have seen it being wooed for various international space collaborations. This promises spinoff technological benefits across Indian industry and is also geo-strategically useful. Likewise, it is only with sufficient AI prowess that India shall really get to play at the high table of global rulemaking for AI. Knowing how much Indians’ future shall be shaped by generative AI needs matching efforts to create indigenous models. In this and at this stage, a proactive government role is key, rather than just waiting on some large corporation to do the needful. Missing this bus will after all be even more costly than missing the chip research one. Plus, GOI alone can push academia-industry collaborations with the necessary weight and urgency. This does not let other institutions off the hook. A US judge has rejected the copyright for an AI-generated artwork. Indian courts should start engaging with the broader issue of non-human agency rather than wait for precedence to be set elsewhere. Indian schools need to think beyond the ban-ChatGPT mindset. Let us lead instead of only being led. [Extracted from “First, get the tech: Unless India develops domestic AI heft, it wouldn’t play any meaningful part in global regulatory efforts”, Times of India]
If the information in the passage above is correct, which of the following must necessarily be true?
Correct Answer :
AI regulation is a collaborative effort involving all the institutions of the State.
Solution :
Correct Option: AI regulation is a collaborative effort involving all the institutions of the State.
Step-by-step Explanation:
1. Analyze the passage context and core message:
The passage discusses the crucial necessity for India to regulate AI effectively and develop indigenous capabilities. Throughout the text, multiple institutions and entities of the State are highlighted as having key roles in AI regulation and development:
• Government / Executive: Mentioned as needing to play a proactive role ("In this and at this stage, a proactive government role is key", "GOI alone can push academia-industry collaborations...").
• Statutory Bodies / Regulators: TRAI is cited as making a strong case for an independent statutory authority for AI governance.
• Judiciary: The passage states, "Indian courts should start engaging with the broader issue of non-human agency rather than wait for precedence...".
• Educational Institutions: The text emphasizes, "Indian schools need to think beyond the ban-ChatGPT mindset."
2. Evaluate the options against the passage:
• Option 1: "AI regulation is the responsibility of the legislature alone." — Incorrect. The passage explicitly calls upon courts, statutory authorities, schools, and the government to engage, showing it is not limited to the legislature alone.
• Option 2: "AI regulation is the responsibility of courts and can’t be addressed through standalone statutory rules." — Incorrect. TRAI's pitch for an independent statutory authority contradicts the idea that statutory rules cannot address it.
• Option 3: "AI regulation is a collaborative effort involving all the institutions of the State." — Correct. By mentioning the government, statutory bodies (TRAI), judiciary (courts), and educational institutions (schools), the passage demonstrates that AI governance requires an integrated, state-wide collaborative approach.
• Option 4: "AI regulation is the domain of private industry." — Incorrect. The passage specifically warns against "just waiting on some large corporation to do the needful" and emphasizes the government's central role.
Conclusion:
Therefore, based on the text, it must necessarily be true that AI regulation is a collaborative effort involving all the institutions of the State.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
