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]
The author states that, “Missing this bus will after all be even more costly than missing the chip research one.” For this statement to be true, with which of the following statements about chip research must the author most likely agree?
Correct Answer :
India should have proactively played a role in responding to new research in chip technology.
Solution :
The correct answer is: India should have proactively played a role in responding to new research in chip technology.
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Analyze the Quote and Context:
The passage emphasizes the necessity of proactive government involvement in creating indigenous AI models. It states: "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."
2. Identify the Analogy:
The author compares "missing the AI bus" (i.e., failing to take a proactive government role in developing domestic AI models) to "missing the chip research one." The phrase implies that India previously made a mistake or suffered a setback by failing to take proactive action in chip research, and missing out on AI would be an even greater loss.
3. Evaluate the Options:
- Option 1: "India lead chip research from its frontiers." – Incorrect. The passage implies India lagged behind or missed out ("missing the chip research [bus]").
- Option 2: "India was right to leave regulation of chip industry and research to MNCs." – Incorrect. The passage explicitly argues against relying solely on large corporations and advocates for a proactive government role.
- Option 3: "India should have proactively played a role in responding to new research in chip technology." – Correct. This directly aligns with the author's logic that India missed the bus on chip research due to a lack of proactive effort/role, a mistake that should not be repeated with AI.
- Option 4: "The failure to respond to new developments in chip technology was a bigger loss than the potential failure to regulate generative AI." – Incorrect. The author explicitly states that missing the AI bus will be "even more costly" (a bigger loss) than missing the chip research bus.
Therefore, the author must agree that India should have proactively played a role in responding to chip technology developments.
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.
