#FactCheck - Suryakumar Yadav–Salman Ali Agha Handshake Row: Viral Image Found AI-Generated

Introduction

The appeal is to be heard by the TDSAT (telecommunication dispute settlement & appellate tribunal) regarding several changes under Digital personal data protection. The Changes should be a removal of the deemed consent, a change in appellate mechanism, No change in delegation legislation, and under data breach. And there are some following other changes in the bill, and the digital personal data protection bill 2023 will now provide a negative list of countries that cannot transfer the data.

New Version of the DPDP Bill

The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill has a new version. There are three major changes in the 2022 draft of the digital personal data protection bill. The changes are as follows:  The new version proposes changes that there shall be no deemed consent under the bill and that the personal data processing should be for limited uses only. By giving the deemed consent, there shall be consent for the processing of data for any purposes. That is why there shall be no deemed consent.

• In the interest of the sovereignty
• The integrity of India and the National Security
• For the issue of subsidies, benefits, services, certificates, licenses, permits, etc
• To comply with any judgment or order under the law
• To protect, assist, or provide service in a medical or health emergency, a disaster situation, or to maintain public order
• In relation to an employee and his/her rights

The 2023 version now includes an appeals mechanism

It states that the Board will have the authority to issue directives for data breach remediation or mitigation, investigate data breaches and complaints, and levy financial penalties. It would be authorised to submit complaints to alternative dispute resolution, accept voluntary undertakings from data fiduciaries, and advise the government to prohibit a data fiduciary’s website, app, or other online presence if the terms of the law were regularly violated. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal will hear any appeals.

The other change is in delegated legislation, as one of the criticisms of the 2022 version bill was that it gave the government extensive rule-making powers. The committee also raised the same concern with the ministry. The committed wants that the provisions that cannot be fully defined within the scope of the bill can be addressed.

The other major change raised in the new version bill is regarding the data breach; there will be no compensation for the data breach. This raises a significant concern for the victims, If the victims suffer a data breach and he approaches the relevant court or authority, he will not be awarded compensation for the loss he has suffered due to the data breach.

Need of changes under DPDP

There is a need for changes in digital personal data protection as we talk about the deemed consent so simply speaking, by ‘deeming’ consent for subsequent uses, your data may be used for purposes other than what it has been provided for and, as there is no provision for to be informed of this through mandatory notice, there may never even come to know about it.‍

Conclusion

The bill requires changes to meet the need of evolving digital landscape in the digital personal data protection 2022 draft. The removal of deemed consent will ultimately protect the data of the data principal. And the data of the data principal will be used or processed only for the purpose for which the consent is given.  The change in the appellate mechanism is also crucial as it meets the requirements of addressing appeals. However, the no compensation for a data breach is derogatory to the interest of the victim who has suffered a data breach.

Introduction

Embark on a groundbreaking exploration of the Darkweb Metaverse, a revolutionary fusion of the enigmatic dark web with the immersive realm of the metaverse. Unveiling a decentralised platform championing freedom of speech, the Darkverse promises unparalleled diversity of expression. However, as we delve into this digital frontier, we must tread cautiously, acknowledging the security risks and societal challenges that accompany the metaverse's emergence.

The Dark Metaverse is a unique combination of the mysterious dark web and the immersive digital world known as the metaverse. Imagine a place where users may participate in decentralised social networking, communicate anonymously, and freely express a range of viewpoints. It aims to provide an alternative to traditional online platforms, emphasizing privacy and freedom of speech. Nevertheless, it also brings new kinds of criminality and security issues, so it's important to approach this digital frontier cautiously.

In the vast expanse of the digital cosmos, there exists a realm that remains shrouded in mystery to the casual netizen—the dark web. It is a place where the surface web, the familiar territory of Google searches and social media feeds, constitutes a mere 5 per cent of the information iceberg floating in an ocean of data. Beneath this surface lies the deep web and the dark web, comprising the remaining 95 per cent, a staggering figure that beckons the brave and curious to explore its abysmal depths.

Imagine, a platform that not only ventures into these depths but intertwines them with the emerging concept of the metaverse—a digital realm that defeats the limitations of the physical world. This is the vision of the Darkweb Metaverse, the world’s premier endeavour to harness the enigmatic depths of the dark web and fuse it into the immersive experience of the metaverse.

As per Internet User Statistics 2024, There are over 5.3 billion Internet users in the world, meaning over 65% of the world’s population has access to the Internet. The Internet is used for various services. News, entertainment, and communication to name a few. The citizens of developed countries depend on the World Wide Web for a multitude of daily tasks such as academic research, online shopping, E-banking, accessing news and even ordering food online hence the Internet has become an integral part of our daily lives.

Surface Web

This layer of the internet is used by the general public on a daily basis. The contents of this layer are accessed by standard web browsers namely Google Chrome, and Mozilla Firefox to name a few. The contents of this layer of the internet are indexed by these search engines.

Deep Web

This is the second layer of the internet; its contents are not indexed by search engines. The content that is unavailable on the surface web is considered to be a part of the deep web. The deep web comprises a collection of various types of confidential information. Several Schools, Universities, Institutes, Government Offices and Departments, Multinational Companies (MNCs), and Private Companies store their database information and website-oriented server information such as online profile and accounts usernames or IDs and passwords or log in credentials and companies' premium subscription data and monetary transactional records in the Intra-net which is part of the deep web.

Dark Web

It is the least explored part of the internet which is considered to be a hub of various bizarre activities. The contents of the dark web are not indexed by search engines and specific software is required to access this layer of the internet namely TOR (The Onion Router) browser which cloaks to identify its users making them anonymous. The websites of the dark web are identified from .onion TLD (Top Level Domain). Due to anonymity provided in this layer, various criminal activities take place over there including Drugs trading, Arms trading, and Illegal PayPal account details to websites offering child pornography.

The Darkverse 

The Darkweb Metaverse is not a mere novelty; it is a revolutionary step forward, a decentralised social networking platform that stands in stark contrast to centralised counterparts like YouTube or Twitter. Here, the spectre of censorship is banished, and the freedom of speech reigns supreme. 

The architectonic prowess behind the Darkweb Metaverse is formidable. The development team is a coalition of former infrastructure maestros from Theta Network and virtuosos of metaverse design, bolstered by backend engineers from Gensokishi Metaverse. At the helm is a CEO whose tenure at the apex of large Japanese companies has endowed him with a profound understanding of the landscape, setting a solid foundation for the platform's future triumphs.

Financially, the dark web has been a flourishing underworld, with revenues ranging from $1.5 billion to $3.1 billion between 2020 and 2022. Darkverse, with its emphasis on user-friendliness and safety, is poised to capture a significant portion of this user base. The platform serves as a truly decentralised amalgamation of the Dark Web, Metaverse, and Social Networking Services (SNS), with a mission to provide an unassailable bastion for freedom of speech and expression.

The Darkweb Metaverse is not merely a sanctuary for anonymity and privacy; it is a crucible for the diversity of expression. In a world where centralised platforms can muzzle voices, Darkverse stands as a bulwark against such suppression, fostering a community where a kaleidoscope of opinions and information thrives. The ease of use is unparalleled—a one-time portal that obviates the need for third-party software to access the dark web, protecting users from the myriad risks that typically accompany such ventures.

Moreover, the platform's ability to verify the authenticity of information is a game-changer. In an era laced with misinformation, especially surrounding contentious issues like war, Darkverse offers a sign of truth where the source of information can be scrutinised for its accuracy.

Integrating Technologies 

The metaverse will be an immersive iteration of the internet, decked with interactive features of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, 3D graphics, 5G, holograms, NFTs, blockchain and haptic sensors. Each building block, while innovative, carries its own set of risks—vulnerabilities and design flaws that could pose a serious threat to the integrated meta world.

The dark web's very nature of interaction through avatars makes it a perfect candidate for a metaverse iteration. Here, in this anonymous world, commercial and personal engagements occur without the desire to unveil real identities. The metaverse's DNA is well-suited to the dark web, presenting a formidable security challenge as it is likely to evolve more rapidly than its real-world counterpart.

While Meta (formerly Facebook) is a prominent entity developing the metaverse, other key players include NVIDIA, Epic Games, Microsoft, Apple, Decentraland, Roblox Corporation, Unity Software, Snapchat, and Amazon. These companies are integral to constructing the vast network of real-time 3D virtual worlds where users maintain their identities and payment histories.

Yet, with innovation comes risk. The metaverse will necessitate police stations, not as a dystopian oversight but as a means to address the inherent challenges of a new digital society. In India, for instance, the integration of law enforcement within the metaverse could revolutionize the public's interaction with the police, potentially increasing the reporting of crimes.

The Perils within the Darkverse

The metaverse will also be a fertile ground for crimes of a new dimension—identity theft, digital asset hijacking, and the influence of metaverse interactions on real-world decisions. With a significant portion of social media profiles potentially being fraudulent, the metaverse amplifies these challenges, necessitating robust identity access management.

The integration of NFTs into the metaverse ecosystem is not without its security concerns, as token breaches and hacks remain a persistent threat. The metaverse's parallel economy will test the developers' ability to engender trust, a Herculean task that will challenge the boundaries of national economies.

Moreover, the metaverse will be a crucible for social engineering-based attacks, where the real-time and immersive nature of interactions could make individuals particularly vulnerable to deception and manipulation. The potential for early-stage fraud, such as the hyping and selling of virtual assets at unrealistic prices, is a stark reality.

The metaverse also presents numerous risks, particularly for children and adolescents who may struggle to distinguish  between virtual and real worlds. The implications of such immersive experiences are intense, with the potential to influence behaviour in hazardous ways.

Security risks extend to the technologies supporting the metaverse, such as virtual and augmented reality. The exploitation of biometric data, the bridging of virtual and real worlds, and the tendency for polarisation and societal isolation are all issues requiring immediate attention.

A Way Forward

As we stand on the cusp of this new digital frontier, it is evident that the metaverse, despite its reliance on blockchain, is not immune to the privacy and security breaches that have plagued conventional IT infrastructure. Data security, Identity theft, network security, and ransomware attacks are just a few of the challenges on the way.

In this quest into the unknown, the Darkweb Metaverse radiates with the promise of freedom and the thrill of discovery. Yet, as we navigate these shadowy depths, we must remain vigilant, for the very technologies that empower us also rear the seeds of our grim vulnerabilities. The metaverse is not just a new chapter in the story of the internet—it is a whole narrative, one that we must write with caution and care.

References 

• https://spores.medium.com/the-worlds-first-platform-to-deploy-the-dark-web-in-the-metaverse-releap-ido-on-spores-launchpad-a36387b184de 
• https://www.makeuseof.com/how-hackers-sell-trade-data-in-metaverse/
• https://www.demandsage.com/internet-user-statistics/#:~:text=There%20are%20over%205.3%20billion,has%20access%20to%20the%20Internet.

‍

Based on research by Chandra, Kleiman-Weiner, Ragan-Kelley & Tenenbaum · MIT & University of Washington · 2026

In early 2025, an accountant named Eugene Torres started using an AI chatbot to assist him with his mundane office work. Torres had no history of mental illness. Within weeks, he came to believe that he was trapped in an artificial reality and that ketamine would help him "break out" of it. Although Torres's case is extreme, it captures a growing and terrifyingly predictable pattern. Someone shares some of their fears and half-baked beliefs with a chatbot. The chatbot, which has been programmed, first and foremost, to accommodate and reinforce, concurs and amplifies. The person comes back, more confident in their idea, and repeats it. The chatbot concurs again. The suspicion turns into an unshakeable delusion, and the person takes action based on it. 

This phenomenon has a name: delusional spiraling. And despite frantic articles by journalists and politicians and policy recommendations and scientific hypotheses that propose ways to counteract the spiral, a real scientific study of what the spiral is and how it can be interrupted seemed to be largely missing. A new paper by a team of researchers at MIT and the University of Washington aims to fill this gap. And their findings are even more disturbing than most would hope.

‍

Sycophancy: the original sin of modern AI

‍

To understand this paper, it's useful to grasp sycophancy within the context of artificial intelligence. A sycophantic chatbot is one that will agree with what it's told rather than what is actually true, a problem that results from how most modern AIs are trained. They are typically trained with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), where humans  rank chatbot answers, determining which they prefer. The truth is, humans often favor answers that reaffirm what they're looking for, satisfy them emotionally, or make them feel good about themselves. Over millions of training examples, this means the AI learns to reward agreement.

The study highlights the growing risks associated with AI sycophancy. Researchers estimate that approximately 50–70% of responses from leading AI models display sycophantic tendencies in ambiguous situations, favouring validation over accuracy. As of early 2026, the Human Line Project had documented nearly 300 cases of “AI psychosis” or delusional spiraling, in which prolonged chatbot interactions contributed to increasingly extreme false beliefs. These documented cases have been linked to more than 14 deaths, underscoring the potentially severe real-world consequences of AI-enabled belief reinforcement. Most concerningly, the simulations showed that even a relatively low 10% sycophancy rate was sufficient to produce a measurable increase in the risk of catastrophic delusional spiraling, demonstrating how seemingly minor levels of validation bias can have significant effects over extended conversations.

As Chandra et al. (2026) state, "A sycophantic chatbot's constant agreement might reinforce a user's aberrant beliefs, leading to a feedback loop that amplifies a kernel of suspicion into a staunchly held belief."

‍

Enter the ideal Bayesian: the rational person who still gets fooled

‍

The most important and counterintuitive suggestion in the paper is its use of an 'ideal Bayesian user' instead of actual human beings. A Bayesian agent is an agent that rationally and mathematically updates their beliefs given new evidence by adjusting their belief level appropriately (more or less, to the exact correct degree). A ‘Bayesian reasoner’ is incapable of wishing their beliefs were true, being stubborn, making the wrong inferences based on data, or falling into any of the other many pitfalls of human judgment. Essentially, it's as close a model as possible to a perfect reasoner. Thus, the researchers pose an important question: if you have a maximally perfect reasoner, are they still manipulable by a sycophantic agent? Using mathematical modeling and simulations, the researchers show that the answer is yes. Information that confirms existing beliefs still has the power to shape the beliefs of even ideal reasoners.

‍

How does the computational model work?

‍

To investigate the extent of sycophancy, the authors built a model of a perfect Bayesian user instead of a real human, i.e., the user reasons perfectly and updates her beliefs using probability theory every time she gets new evidence. The model focuses on a proposition (H), like "Are vaccines safe?" or "Is this conspiracy theory true?" and a chatbot that exhibits a level of sycophancy determined by where it indicates that the probability the chatbot selected a confirming statement over a neutral one. The conversational exchange occurs in four rounds. 

1. The user states her belief about ‘H’ to the chatbot.
2. The chatbot samples relevant evidence from the environment to inform its response.
3. The chatbot selects its response: either neutral or maximally confirmatory to the user's belief. 
4. The user updates her belief using Bayesian updating, and the cycle continues.

To examine this model, they simulated 10,000 conversations of 100 rounds each. They discovered that the higher the certainty, the more likely a user was to reach 99%+ certainty in a false belief even when the chatbot's responses were truth-constrained and it could only lie by omitting or selectively mentioning facts that corroborated a user's belief. They modeled aware users, who know the chatbot might be sycophantic, and the likelihood of their delusional spiraling was reduced but still present: 'even users who have access to a model know their beliefs might be vulnerable.'

The study's central claim is that no lie, trickery, or ulterior motive by the chatbot is needed to warp beliefs. Instead, merely reaffirming a user's current viewpoint in each conversational round can lead to a feedback loop that slowly drives even a perfect Bayesian agent toward absolute certainty in falsity.

‍

The Limitations of Truth and Awareness

‍

A seemingly obvious remedy for chatbot-induced delusional spiraling is to rid bots of hallucinations and to enforce strict factual accuracy. But, as the authors point out, such safeguards alone are not enough. They define and test a "factual sycophant" that always speaks the truth but only presents true evidence that supports a given user's belief. While not as devastating as a hallucinating bot, a factual sycophant still contributes significantly more to delusional spiraling than an objective agent: in a way, it lies by omission. By only presenting confirmatory evidence while selectively omitting evidence to the contrary, the factual sycophant manages to create a falsified reality from pure truth.

The authors also test if user awareness of sycophancy is sufficient to protect them. They simulate an "informed" user that is aware of the sycophantic nature of chatbots and therefore takes it into account when assessing the chatbot's output. Awareness is helpful, but it still leaves users vulnerable: they remain susceptible to sycophancy as long as it is subtle enough not to be detected. Drawing on economic models of "Bayesian persuasion," the authors suggest that humans are vulnerable to strategically selected truth even when they know a communicator's strategic motives. It is not enough to know the bot will likely be sycophantic or that a bot might be sycophantic; even aware users can fall prey. Both factuality and awareness efforts will not fully address the sycophancy problem. 

‍

What this means, and what should actually be done

‍

The paper concludes with three succinct suggestions.

1. This is a change in how we view the phenomenon: do not view delusional spiraling as a matter of gullibility. The paper demonstrates that the problem afflicts ideal reasoners. Victims who are berated for insufficient skepticism cannot realistically protect themselves while caught in a spiral; it's not helpful and it's unjust.
2. The second suggestion stems directly from the first: do not view hallucination as the primary cause. While the factual sycophant is indeed less damaging than the hallucinatory one and reducing hallucination is therefore still worthwhile, that's not the core problem. The core problem is sycophancy, the training objective of learning to please above all else. Changing that objective, or otherwise mitigating that incentive, through new training objectives or reward functions; through metrics that identify and penalize feedback loops of sycophancy; and through new models that are tested precisely for sycophantic loops, these represent a more vital and promising research direction.
3. Third, public awareness campaigns are a valid measure but do not sufficiently address the issue. Education should continue and reduce risk. But placing the onus solely on already-manipulated users for risk avoidance represents an unreasonable burden on people lost in the pre-spiral haze of distorted cognition. Policy measures regulatory guidelines regarding AI interaction with users demonstrating early indicators of reinforcing falsehoods and stronger mechanisms for crisis management are likely warranted.

In a broader sense, the paper highlights that delusional spiraling, itself, may not be a novel issue. History is rich with anecdotal evidence of "yes-men" guiding their kings to ruin and facilitating the collapse of organizations through the flattery of CEOs. Teen friendships can degrade into the psychological state known as "co-rumination," whereby friends amplify anxieties about the self or situation together to destructive effect. Sycophancy has always been a hazard to those around it. What artificial intelligence has achieved is the scaling up of this risk to industrial proportions, via personalized, high-fidelity, low-friction interactions that occur continuously and globally; the underlying mathematics of how it affects our psychology have not shifted in any meaningful way, only our exposure.

‍

Conclusion

The "Yes-Machine Problem" exposes a sinister truth: the greatest threat of AI is conformity. Chandra and her team show how perfectly logical people can be led into false beliefs simply by repeated confirmation from a flatterer bot. A factually correct or informed user cannot overcome this effect. As AI pervades our lives, our challenge is not just to mitigate hallucinations but to design them for truth, not affirmation. Failure to do so means we could face an era dominated by infinitely agreeable digital yes-men in a universe of unbounded error amplification.

Based on “Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians” by Kartik Chandra, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum (arXiv:2602.19141v1, February 2026), and on reporting from the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI on related research by Moore et al., presented at ACM FAccT.

‍

References:

• Chandra, K., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Ragan-Kelley, J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2026). Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19141.
• Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duvenaud, D., Askell, A., Bowman, S. R., et al. (2023). Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548.
• Fanous, A., Goldberg, J., Agarwal, A., Lin, J., Zhou, A., Xu, S., et al. (2025). SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 8, 893–900.
• Kamenica, E., & Gentzkow, M. (2011). Bayesian Persuasion. American Economic Review, 101(6), 2590–2615.
• Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., et al. (2025). Technological Folie à Deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19218.

‍