#FactCheck - Digitally Altered Video of Olympic Medalist, Arshad Nadeem’s Independence Day Message
Executive Summary:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist and Javelin player Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day to the People of Pakistan, with claims of snoring audio in the background is getting viral. CyberPeace Research Team found that the viral video is digitally edited by adding the snoring sound in the background. The original video published on Arshad's Instagram account has no snoring sound where we are certain that the viral claim is false and misleading.
Claims:
A video of Pakistani Olympic gold medalist Arshad Nadeem wishing Independence Day with snoring audio in the background.
Fact Check:
Upon receiving the posts, we thoroughly checked the video, we then analyzed the video in TrueMedia, an AI Video detection tool, and found little evidence of manipulation in the voice and also in face.
We then checked the social media accounts of Arshad Nadeem, we found the video uploaded on his Instagram Account on 14th August 2024. In that video, we couldn’t hear any snoring sound.
Hence, we are certain that the claims in the viral video are fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
The viral video of Arshad Nadeem with a snoring sound in the background is false. CyberPeace Research Team confirms the sound was digitally added, as the original video on his Instagram account has no snoring sound, making the viral claim misleading.
- Claim: A snoring sound can be heard in the background of Arshad Nadeem's video wishing Independence Day to the people of Pakistan.
- Claimed on: X,
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
Two of the most influential voices offered strikingly divergent visions of humanity’s technological future in May 2026. On one side of the equation was Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, who spoke of a future in which intelligence would be a "service like electricity or water," available on a metered basis and powered by massive AI infrastructure. On the other side was Leo XIV, the Pope of the Catholic Church, whose encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, presented the Church's most substantial response to AI, presenting the technology not simply as a technical innovation but also as a crucial moral, social, and civilizational challenge.
The differences in their views run much deeper than merely those regarding control and development. At issue is a conflict in understanding intelligence, the purpose of technology, and the dignity of man. While Altman saw intelligence as an abundant economic factor, one that could be produced, distributed, and consumed, Leo XIV emphasized that intelligence is indissociable from the person and that we should be wary of turning human potential into mere merchandise. Their clash of visions can essentially be understood as two different answers to the question: What is a human being, and to whose service should technology be devoted?
Intelligence as Infrastructure
Altman implies that artificial intelligence will follow the trajectory of electricity in industrial society, where the utility became available everywhere as part of the bedrock of society. The ultimate goal is to generate abundance. Cognitive ability will become cheaper and more readily available until it is so inexpensive that it is built into everything.
From the perspective of the business, this is compelling. In many ways modern AI already has infrastructure-like properties. Programmers, businesses, governments, and even individuals are using intelligence as a commodity delivered by a centralized platform and API in a way similar to how previous generations would have used the electricity grid. Altman is essentially predicting that this trend will reach its ultimate form, where intelligence becomes a utility.
There are several assumptions inherent in this utility metaphor; however, utilities are never neutral technologies; they are all forms of governance, ownership, and control. It is not merely the resource being delivered that makes electricity grids, telephone systems, and water infrastructure powerful but the institutions that mediate access to those resources. In Altman's statement "people will buy it from us," there is a political question inherent: Who does the infrastructure of cognition belong to?
Altman himself is also concerned with these issues, often reiterating that this technology could lead to an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. Yet this concern is a paradox, as truly democratized artificial intelligence does not appear possible without immense capital investment, colossal data centers, proprietary models, and a monopolization of talent. The path to making intelligence universally available appears to lie through unprecedented centralization.
The Vatican's Response: Beyond Technology
Magnifica Humanitas approaches this from a different perspective. It is not, fundamentally, a document on AI policy but on social philosophy, rooted in the Catholic tradition of social teaching. Just as Rerum Novarum, published in 1891, had explored the social implications of industrial capitalism, Leo XIV views AI as a new juncture in humankind's engagement with technology and power.
Two biblical images are recurring throughout the encyclical: Babel and Jerusalem. Babel, the archetype of technical ambition without purpose or moral intent, is an effort to reorder and recenter human society based on conformity, centralization, and the delusion of self-sufficiency. Jerusalem, rebuilt under Nehemiah, is an image of collective reconstruction based on participation and responsibility.
The symbolic weight is critical. Leo XIV is not arguing that technology in itself is inherently dangerous. He is, rather, suggesting that the tools of technology will inherently contain and perpetuate whatever values, incentives, and priorities of the architects and wielders of these technologies. The question is not therefore whether AI should exist, but rather whether it increases human flourishing or enhances systems of control.
This provides what is likely the most significant realization within the encyclical that AI and human intelligence are categories distinct in kind, not in degree. AI can simulate, calculate, and compute, but it can never possess awareness, ethical responsibility, embodiment, or meaningful relationships. As such, decisions impacting human life can no longer be deferred to algorithms in a manner that negates the human good.
The Problem of Power
The most evident clash between Altman's vision and Magnifica Humanitas lies in power dynamics.
The utility model of Altman places the assumption that intelligence can be centrally controlled and widely disseminated. However, the Vatican perceives major political consequences from the concentration of cognitive ability. According to the encyclical, this kind of concentration can lead to major political problems because small groups are given immense power over the economy, public debate, and democracy by possessing the necessary control over data, computation, and the network.
This idea is becoming more prominent in recent research. Experts like Kate Crawford, for instance, have described AI as 'a registry of power' in which systems build up hierarchies of social, political, and economic power. Digital colonialism scholars also show that the control of the network of intelligence under a few transnational corporations may diminish power that would otherwise reside with local authorities and democratic institutions.
The problem, seen from this point of view, does not simply address technology but sovereignty itself. If intelligence is provided as a metered service within private platforms, the access to knowledge, reason, and decision-making tools might rest with entities outside the public sphere, unconcerned with democracy.
The Vatican's solution relies on the principle of subsidiarity; decisions should be taken at the lowest possible levels, respecting the autonomy of individuals, communities, and local institutions. This principle directly contradicts the proposals that see cognitive infrastructure located within a few multinational organizations.
The Hidden Labour Behind AI
A particularly important segment of Magnifica Humanitas addresses the invisible labor of the AI economy.
While discourse on AI frequently conceptualizes it as an intangible or ethereal technology residing within "the cloud," the opposite is in fact the case. AI relies on the unseen labors of data annotators, content moderators, miners harvesting rare earth metals, construction workers creating data centers, and technicians repairing digital infrastructure. In many cases, these workers exist in marginal situations; investigations have revealed poor wages, minimal rights, and psychologically damaging working conditions, especially for content moderators and data annotators in the Global South. Critics contend that the AI of today exists on the backbone of an unacknowledged global workforce that is shielded from consumers of AI technology. In the encyclical, this idea of the AI economy is framed in terms of human dignity, the standard by which all progress, technological or otherwise, must be measured. Progress cannot be defined solely in terms of efficiency and productivity but must be defined by its consequences for workers, society, and human relationships. While the technology of AI may confer tremendous value to a few, it must not do so at the expense of the humanity of others. It gives a key critique of Altman’s utility model that the appeal of abundant intelligence often focuses on products while neglecting the social and material conditions in which it is produced.
A Clash of Anthropologies
The deepest philosophical disagreement of Altman's and Leo XIV's is over anthropology, i.e., who human beings actually are.
Altman’s view presumes an ability to quantify and allocate the human capacity for intelligence. The more intelligent the society, the better the society; and intelligence becomes the prime causal factor whose production must be maximized by the machine.
The Vatican rejects this fundamental principle. According to the argument of Magnifica Humanitas, human value is not located in intelligent productivity or efficiency or economic productivity. Dignity is non-conditional and cannot be reduced to measures of performance. One has dignity not because one can compute, produce, and optimize, but because one is a person.
The implications of this difference are vast. If intelligence is principally treated as an economic asset, then humans will constantly have to deal with being judged as being of greater or lesser use compared to the machine. If dignity is intrinsic, machines must remain instruments of the flourishing of the human, irrespective of machine efficiency. In sum, this is not a debate over machines. It is a debate over whether society is going to be defined according to an ideology of optimization or an ideology of humanity.
Conclusion
The juxtaposition of Sam Altman’s model of utility and Leo XIV’s idea of Magnifica Humanitas defines one of the key intellectual arguments of our times. Altman presents a vision of abundance, efficiency, and humanly impossible intellectual capacity. Leo XIV represents what happens when intelligence is divorced from the demands of ethics, democracy, and human dignity; when the demands they represent only contribute to its ultimate capacity to wound the needs it serves.
It is not whether we will build machines more and more intelligent; it is what politics and values will govern these machines. When intelligence becomes a service, whose interests will govern the machine, who will write the rules, and who will be the direct beneficiaries? When dignity is the source from which man and machine alike emerge, the service must not be judged on what the machine does best but on what it can do for man. The ultimate question is whether we will be able to maintain a view of ourselves that is larger than just our capacity to engineer.
References:
- Atlas of AI, Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
- Pope Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. Vatican City: Holy See, 2026.
- Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City: Holy See, 1891.
- Pope John Paul II. Laborem Exercens. Vatican City: Holy See, 1981.
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dignitas Infinita. Vatican City: Holy See, 2024.
- International Theological Commission. Quo Vadis, Humanitas? Thinking About Christian Anthropology in the Face of Some Scenarios on the Future of Humanity. Vatican City, 2026.
- Nick Lichtenberg. "Sam Altman Admits AI Is Killing the Labor-Capital Balance—and Says Nobody Knows What to Do About It." Fortune, 12 March 2026.
Executive Summary
A video circulating widely on social media claims to show a pilot of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crying and expressing fear about flying fighter jets, allegedly citing poor maintenance and frequent crashes. The clip is being linked to the crash of an IAF Sukhoi-30 fighter jet in Assam on March 5, in which two pilots lost their lives. In the viral video, a man dressed like a pilot is seen speaking emotionally, saying that flying fighter jets has become frightening due to lack of maintenance and repeated accidents. Several users are sharing the clip claiming that the man in the video is an IAF pilot revealing the reality behind aircraft crashes. However, research by the CyberPeace found the claim to be false. The video does not depict a real pilot or an actual incident. Instead, it appears to be an AI-generated clip created and circulated with the intent to spread misinformation.
Claim:
An Instagram user, ‘samacharsaar0’, shared the viral video on March 10, 2026, with the English caption: “2300 aircraft crashes, 1300 pilots dead: A major challenge before the IAF.”
- Source: :https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVqa4lNiYJQ
- Archived link::https://perma.cc/EUZ8-DHE3
Fact Check:
The claim was also debunked by PIB Fact Check. While verifying the viral video, PIB clarified that the clip is artificially generated and not related to any real IAF personnel.
To further verify the authenticity of the video, we analyzed it using AI detection tools. The tool Hive Moderation indicated a 99.9% probability that the video was generated using artificial intelligence.
We also examined the clip using another AI detection platform, Undetectable. The analysis suggested an 82% likelihood that the video was created with AI tools. The tool also indicated the possibility that the footage may have been generated using the Sora AI video generation tool.
Conclusion
Our research concludes that the viral video of a crying “pilot” is not authentic. The clip has been created using artificial intelligence and is being misleadingly shared as a real Indian Air Force pilot speaking about aircraft crashes. The government has also denied the claim associated with the video.
Executive Summary
A news video is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has resigned from his post in protest against the ongoing UGC-related controversy. Several users are sharing the clip while alleging that Kumar stepped down after opposing the issue. However, CyberPeace research has found the claim to be false. The researchrevealed that the video being shared is from 2022 and has no connection whatsoever with the UGC or any recent protests related to it. An old video has been misleadingly linked to a current issue to spread misinformation on social media.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared a video on January 26 claiming that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar had resigned. The post further alleged that the news was first aired on Republic channel and that Kumar had submitted his resignation to then-Governor Phagu Chauhan. The link to the post, its archived version, and screenshots can be seen below. (Links as provided)
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, CyberPeace first conducted a keyword-based search on Google. No credible or established media organisation reported any such resignation, clearly indicating that the viral claim lacked authenticity.
Further, the voiceover in the viral video states that Nitish Kumar handed over his resignation to Governor Phagu Chauhan. However, Phagu Chauhan ceased to be the Governor of Bihar in February 2023. The current Governor of Bihar is Arif Mohammad Khan, making the claim in the video factually incorrect and misleading.
In the next step, keyframes from the viral video were extracted and reverse-searched using Google Lens. This led to the official YouTube channel of Republic Bharat, where the full version of the same video was found. The video was uploaded on August 9, 2022. This clearly establishes that the clip circulating on social media is not recent and is being shared out of context.
Conclusion
CyberPeace’s research confirms that the viral video claiming Nitish Kumar resigned over the UGC issue is false. The video dates back to 2022 and has no link to the current UGC controversy. An old political video has been deliberately circulated with a misleading narrative to create confusion on social media.
