Question

Which of the following is the author most likely to agree with?

• A. The best way to deal with the advancement of AI is to leave its regulation to market forces.
• B. Government-driven control of AI is inefficient and shall promote red-tapism
• C. Private companies with their large capital and infrastructure design the most efficient AI governance models.
• D. Government-led initiatives of AI regulation and development lead to efficient outcomes.
• A. Governments that lead the initiative on regulating and responding to the advancement of AI tools benefit the most from them.
• B. Governments that don’t engage with generative AI and remain at its receiving end stay risk-averse with nothing to lose.
• C. Governments that actively incentivise MNCs to participate in AI governance make the most out of the advancements in the field.
• D. Governments that explore models of public-private partnership strike the right balance in regulating generative AI.
• A. Courts should take the initiative by being innovative and laying down rules where no precedents exist.
• B. Courts should wait for precedents and in the meantime refrain from engaging with the challenges presented by generative AI.
• C. Courts should stop relying on precedents and decide cases on the basis of judicial wisdom.
• D. Precedents are the best possible safeguard against arbitrary decision-making.
• A. AI regulation is the responsibility of the legislature alone
• B. AI regulation is the responsibility of courts and can’t be addressed through standalone statutory rules.
• C. AI regulation is a collaborative effort involving all the institutions of the State.
• D. AI regulation is the domain of private industry.
• A. Investing in indigenous AI chip hardware design and domestic generative models.
• B. Exploring spinoff technological benefits with other scientific advancements like the Chandrayaan mission.
• C. Introducing generative models like Wu Dao which have demonstrated success in other jurisdictions.
• D. Locally developing technologies such as indigenous AI models.
• A. India lead chip research from its frontiers.
• B. India was right to leave regulation of chip industry and research to MNCs.
• C. India should have proactively played a role in responding to new research in chip technology.
• D. The failure to respond to new developments in chip technology was a bigger loss than the potential failure to regulate generative AI.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the author’s argument:
The passage emphasizes that artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the world, and that countries must develop their own AI technologies to stay relevant in global discussions and decision-making. The author stresses that India must take a proactive role in developing its AI capabilities, rather than waiting for large corporations or other countries to lead the way.

Step 2: The need for government involvement:
The passage points out that the Indian government should play a critical role in creating a regulatory framework for AI and fostering collaboration between academia and industry. The author argues that without this government intervention, India risks falling behind other global leaders like the US and China, who have already made significant advancements in AI.

Step 3: India’s role in global AI regulation:
The author mentions that India is not currently at the forefront of AI development, unlike the US and China, and that India must work toward establishing indigenous AI models. A proactive government role would help India not only develop its own AI but also participate in global AI governance and regulation, allowing the country to influence decisions that shape the future of AI.

Step 4: Conclusion:
The correct answer is option (D): "Government-led initiatives of AI regulation and development lead to efficient outcomes." This option aligns with the passage’s argument that the government must take the lead in AI development and regulation to ensure India’s competitiveness and involvement in global AI decision-making.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the main argument:
The main argument in the passage is that India needs to take a proactive role in developing and regulating artificial intelligence (AI) to avoid falling behind in global advancements. The author stresses that India must not only develop its own AI technologies but also contribute to the global governance of AI.

Step 2: Strengthening the argument with government involvement:
The passage further strengthens this point by suggesting that countries that actively regulate and engage with AI are the ones that benefit the most. By taking control over AI development and ensuring responsible regulation, governments can ensure their nations play a meaningful part in shaping AI technologies and decision-making.

Step 3: Aligning with India’s role:
The author emphasizes that India needs to step up its efforts to develop indigenous AI models, and this can only be achieved through strong government intervention. The passage suggests that without such intervention, India risks losing out on the benefits of AI and becoming a passive recipient of AI technologies developed elsewhere.

Step 4: Conclusion:
The correct answer is option (A): "Governments that lead the initiative on regulating and responding to the advancement of AI tools benefit the most from them." This option aligns with the author's argument that India must take the lead in AI development and regulation to maximize its benefits and play an active role in global AI governance.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the author’s statement:
The author suggests that Indian courts should engage with the issue of non-human agency (such as AI and other technological advancements) rather than waiting for other countries to set legal precedents. This implies a proactive approach, where Indian courts take charge in creating laws or guidelines in areas that have not yet been addressed legally.

Step 2: The importance of innovation and initiative:
The author emphasizes the need for Indian courts to be forward-thinking and innovative in dealing with new challenges, such as non-human agency. Waiting for precedents to be set elsewhere could leave India behind in addressing emerging issues. The proactive approach suggested by the author advocates for Indian courts to take the initiative and create their own rules, ensuring the country keeps pace with global developments.

Step 3: Conclusion:
Based on the author’s statement, the correct answer is Courts should take the initiative by being innovative and laying down rules where no precedents exist. This is in line with the author’s call for Indian courts to lead by setting legal precedents in the field of non-human agency, rather than waiting for others to set them first.

Answer 4

Step 1: Analyzing the passage:
The passage emphasizes the importance of India taking a proactive role in AI development and regulation. It highlights that the government must lead the charge in creating regulatory frameworks for AI, but also stresses that other institutions must play a role as well. The government cannot solely be responsible for regulating AI—academic, industry, and judicial institutions need to collaborate to ensure responsible development and governance.

Step 2: Understanding the collaborative nature of AI regulation:
The author specifically mentions the importance of the government's role in fostering academia-industry collaborations, implying that AI regulation should involve all relevant sectors and institutions. Additionally, the courts are also urged to engage with AI-related issues, showing that the legal system must participate in the regulatory process.

Step 3: Conclusion:
Based on the passage, the correct answer is AI regulation is a collaborative effort involving all the institutions of the State. This is consistent with the author’s argument that AI regulation should not just be the responsibility of one entity, but rather a joint effort involving government, academia, industry, and the judiciary.

Answer 5

Step 1: Analyzing the author's argument:
The author stresses the importance of India developing its own indigenous AI models in order to be at the forefront of generative AI. The author suggests that relying on the success of generative models developed in other jurisdictions, such as China’s Wu Dao, could undermine India’s position in AI.

Step 2: Understanding the potential issue with adopting foreign generative models:
While other countries, like China, have made significant strides with their own generative models, the author argues that India should focus on developing its own models. Relying on foreign models like Wu Dao means India would be at the receiving end of technological developments, rather than actively contributing to global AI governance and innovation.

Step 3: Conclusion:
Based on the author’s argument, the correct answer is Introducing generative models like Wu Dao which have demonstrated success in other jurisdictions. This would weaken India's position because it would mean relying on foreign-developed technology rather than building and promoting India's own AI capabilities.

Answer 6

Step 1: Understanding the author’s statement:
The author’s statement, “Missing this bus will after all be even more costly than missing the chip research one,” suggests that failing to act now on AI development and regulation will have more severe consequences than missing out on opportunities in chip technology research in the past.

Step 2: Analyzing the significance of chip research:
The author refers to "missing the chip research one," implying that India’s failure to play a proactive role in chip technology research in the past has already resulted in lost opportunities. The phrase “more costly” indicates that the consequences of missing out on AI advancements now would be even more detrimental than the missed opportunities in chip research.

Step 3: Conclusion:
For the statement to be true, the author must agree that India should have proactively played a role in responding to new research in chip technology. This would align with the comparison the author is making about the cost of missing the AI opportunity versus chip research.
Therefore, the correct answer is India should have proactively played a role in responding to new research in chip technology.