Should ABC stop all AI to be ethical?

No. It should stop unpaid atmospheric theft. Public-health and grid-efficient models on additional clean power are a different file from vanity training.

Is a rival giants’ penalty always justice?

Only if the same yardstick hits every large trainer. A selective fine that protects Northern incumbents is another conflict of interest.

Case study. There is a technological company named ABC Incorporated which is the

Revision summary

Open summary Close summary

The CEO’s first duty is to publish the 48 percent, audit data centres, and freeze vanity AI training. Ethical issues include climate justice, greenwash, owner conflict, host-community harm and future persons. A penalty is logically needed to price atmospheric harm; it is unethical if it is a Northern club hitting only ABC. Fair accountability is a sector cap, independent levy, and repair of the host grid. Balance means smaller models, additional clean power, water caps and an honest 2030, not offsets as eraser.

Model answer

Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.

Introduction

You are CEO and majority shareholder of ABC Incorporated, the second-largest technology firm in the world, sited in the Third World. Activists, regulators and the public already distrust the footprint. In 2023, greenhouse gases rose 48 percent against 2019, mainly because AI data centres drink power that ordinary search never did. Net zero by 2030 is on the wall. The curve on the wall goes the other way. This is innovation versus a livable commons, with your name on both.

Body

(a) Immediate response

The immediate response is not a slogan and not a hide. Acknowledge the 48 percent in public numbers, not a fog of “intensity”. Commission an independent energy and GHG audit of every data centre, with scope 1, 2 and material 3, and publish the method. Freeze new training runs that have no named social use until the board sees the megawatt price. Name a board climate committee that you do not chair alone, because you are majority owner and the conflict is obvious. Talk to workers and host communities before a press note. Open a line to the regulator with a time-bound abatement plan: renewable PPAs, waste-heat, water, siting. Do not fire the sustainability lead for telling the truth. Do not buy cheap offsets as a 2023 eraser. Jonas’s responsibility to the future starts as this week’s kilowatt.

(b) Ethical issues

Climate justice: luxury AI inference for ads while a heat-belt host country loses crop and water. Intergenerational duty: 2030 net zero was a promise to people not yet born. Truth versus greenwash: a target that rises 48 percent is a lie of atmosphere. Power and opacity: models that cannot be audited still bill the grid. Conflict of interest: CEO-majority shareholder loves growth that heats the commons. Workers and communities near plants: jobs versus smoke and water. Global fairness: a Third World siting can be development or a pollution haven for a world-scale firm. Human dignity in AI: energy is not the only ethics; bias and surveillance ride the same racks. Stakeholder set: users, employees, host public, future persons, investors, rival giants, the atmosphere as a silent stakeholder (Leopold’s land ethic).

(c) Penalty by technological giants — why a real consequence is necessary

The stem says the company has been identified to be penalized by technological giants. The ethical task is not to whine and not to volunteer a suicide that only ABC pays while Northern rivals keep training. Logical arguments for a necessary penalty (or equivalent hard consequence). Without a cost, the 48 percent is rational profit. Economics 101 and Mill agree that harm to the commons must be priced. A penalty that funds grid decarbonisation in the host country is repair, not theatre. Equal treatment: if giants club together to crush a Southern competitor while their own AI curves also rise, that is protectionism wearing a green coat, and you must say so with data. Ethical arguments. Integrity means accepting proportionate liability you caused. Justice means CBDR inside the industry: historical emitters and present luxury models share the bill. Necessity of a penalty is the necessity of a rule that binds the strong. You convince by publishing your inventory, accepting an independent levy or science-based cap, challenging a selective club fine in a fair forum, and offering to join a sector standard that includes water and land, not only a press fine. Kant: a maxim of unpunished atmospheric theft cannot be universal. Gandhi: means of the penalty must not be a secret boycott that starves workers while founders keep jets.

(d) Measures to balance AI innovation and footprint

Measure what matters: energy per useful task, water, land, not only tokens. Siting: grids that are already clean, or additionality of new renewables, not paper RECs on a coal night. Model choice: smaller specialised models where a giant general model is vanity. Defer training that is advertising, not public-health or climate science. 24/7 carbon-free matching, storage, efficient cooling, no drinking-water chillers in a drought district. Open a public R&D line on efficient inference as a duty, not a CSR leaflet. Worker transition if a dirty hall closes. Governance: science-based targets with annual vote on whether 2030 still exists; if not, change the claim, do not change the thermometer. Host-state compact: tax, water cap, community audit. Innovation that cannot fit in a carbon budget is not destiny. It is a product choice.

Flow diagram

Conclusion

Tell the truth about the 48 percent, cap vanity training, and put the owner-CEO under a board that can overrule growth. A penalty is necessary as priced harm, and it must bind every giant, not only a Third World name. AI can continue where it earns its megawatts in clean power and real public use.

Quick related

Students also ask

Case study. Raman is a senior IPS officer and has recently been posted as D.G. of a state. Among the various issues and problems/challenges which needed his immediate attention, the issue relating to recruitment of unemployed youth by an unknown terrorist group, was a matter of grave concern. Unemployment was relatively high in the state. A new terrorist group has emerged at the global level and launched a massive drive to recruit young unemployed people, with special focus on a particular community. Discrete inquiries through the Cyber Cell revealed that good numbers of unemployed youth are very active on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, spending 6-8 hours each day, showing sympathy and endorsing messages from contact persons of that global terrorist group. (a) What are the options available to Raman to tackle the above situation? (b) What measures would you suggest for strengthening the existing set-up to ensure that such groups do not succeed in penetrating and vitiating the atmosphere in the state? (c) In the above scenario, what action plan would you advise for enhancing the intelligence gathering mechanism of the police force?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2024 · Q8). View answer →
Should ABC stop all AI to be ethical?

No. It should stop unpaid atmospheric theft. Public-health and grid-efficient models on additional clean power are a different file from vanity training.
Is a rival giants’ penalty always justice?

Only if the same yardstick hits every large trainer. A selective fine that protects Northern incumbents is another conflict of interest.

Same topic · past papers

UPSC has asked this before

These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.

More from this topic

Q12 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution

Case study. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?

Ethics Case Studies

This case study examines ethical dilemma in defense exports, balancing economic gains, strategic partnerships, and non-proliferation norms. Ajit must choose between Country A for R&D collaboration and self-reliance, or Country B for immediate financial gains and FTA leverage. The recommended course prioritizes long-term strategic security, technological synergy, and international humanitarian norms over short-term mercantile interests.

View answer → Download PDF

Q11 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution

Case study. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics?

Ethics Case Studies

This GS4 case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by a District Magistrate in managing an ethnic conflict in a sensitive border district. It analyses the ethical issues involving neutrality, human life, security, and institutional trust. It evaluates options ranging from purely coercive measures to inclusive peace-building. The recommended approach balances administrative firmness with transparent, unbiased stakeholder engagement to uphold public service values.

View answer → Download PDF

Q10 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution

Case study. Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WIFI connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to 'government regulations' would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.

Ethics Case Studies

• Balance strict digital rules with human empathy to prevent vulnerable citizens from losing entitled rations due to technical failures. • Avoid extreme approaches like rigid enforcement (causing exclusion) or unchecked discretion (causing leakage and corruption). • Implement practical offline workarounds like manual registers, paper slips, or OTPs backed by periodic audits. • Treat procedural norms and technology as tools for human welfare rather than rigid ends in themselves. • Recognize that digital gatekeeping creates ethical tensions between fiscal efficiency and the exclusion of genuine beneficiaries. • Guard against technology violating human dignity by forcing vulnerable groups to repeatedly prove their identity against system errors. • Ensure administrative accountability so systemic technological failures are not unfairly blamed on the citizens.

View answer → Download PDF