#FactCheck -Viral Post Falsely Attributes Communal NEET Remark to Kangana Ranaut; Fact Check Debunks Claim
Executive Summary
A post claiming to be a statement by BJP MP Kangana Ranaut regarding the NEET paper leak is going viral on social media. The post allegedly quotes her as saying:“Hindus are in danger here and you are worried about the NEET exam. If Hindus do not exist, who will take the NEET exam?” The CyberPeace Research Wing research found this claim to be fake. Kangana Ranaut herself has also denied the viral post through her official X (formerly Twitter) account.
Claim
A user on X shared the viral graphic and wrote that Hindus are in danger and questioned the relevance of the NEET exam, further linking it to political criticism of the BJP government.
Fact Check
During the research, keyword-based searches revealed no credible reports linking Kangana Ranaut to any such statement regarding NEET paper leaks or Hindus. We also reviewed Kangana Ranaut’s official social media accounts. On May 20, 2026, she tagged Congress leader Surendra Singh Rajput in an X post and clearly termed the viral statement as fake. She also criticized Rajput and the Congress party over the spread of misinformation. Notably, Surendra Rajput later deleted his original post.
On May 21, Rajput reposted Kangana’s clarification, stating that after her denial it was clear that the poster and statement were not hers. He also said he had deleted his post. Under his post, a user shared screenshots of the deleted content.
Conclusion
Our research confirms that Kangana Ranaut has not made any such statement related to the NEET paper leak or Hindus. The viral claim is fake.
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
Amid political developments following the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections, a photo is being widely circulated on social media claiming that former cricketer and Baharampur MP Yusuf Pathan has joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The viral image shows Pathan wearing a BJP scarf and standing alongside Union Health Minister JP Nadda. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be false. The image in circulation is AI-generated and does not depict any real event.
Claim:
A Facebook user ‘Mohd Anwar Dhadoli Khurd’ shared the viral image on June 16, 2026, claiming that Yusuf Pathan has joined the BJP. The post has since been widely shared across platforms.
Post link: https://www.facebook.com/mohd.anwar.dhadoli.khurd/posts/pfbid02WAo4uXhhM1qEVTMbxTjKpTHkoeAbfEztwkX6tWLWpN8WBzNavgtJgKV8JoBGULSul
Archive link: https://perma.cc/4A3H-YTPL
Fact Check:
A reverse image search of the viral photo did not yield any credible news reports or authentic sources linking the image to any such political development. No related information was found on Yusuf Pathan’s official social media accounts either, raising suspicion about the authenticity of the image. The image was then analysed using AI detection tools. Sightengine reported a 99% probability of the image being AI-generated.
Additionally, analysis using “Undetectable.ai” also indicated a high likelihood of AI manipulation.
Conclusion:
The research confirms that the viral image claiming Yusuf Pathan’s entry into the BJP is AI-generated and does not reflect any real-world event.
Artificial intelligence tends to attract extreme opinions. Some commentators argue it is eroding our capacity to think. Others believe it is freeing our minds for more valuable work. Both views miss the more important point: the effect of AI depends on how a person chooses to use it. Whether a chatbot supports someone's thinking or replaces it altogether comes down to that choice, and that choice is what separates an assistant from a substitute. Not long ago, generative AI was a novelty. Now it shows up daily in classrooms, newsrooms and offices - almost everywhere people write, plan or make decisions. That kind of shift is exactly why researchers have started looking closely at something harder to see: what happens inside the brain once thinking gets outsourced to a machine. The findings are worth knowing.
What the Brain Scans Actually Showed
One of the clearest pieces of evidence comes out of MIT's Media Lab. The study by Nataliya Kosmyna was carried out for 4 months in 2025 with the participation of all in all, there were 54 participants The fifty four participants were divided into three groups and assigned each group one unique but identical writing task. Group one wrote with ChatGPT open in front of them. The second used a standard search engine. The third had access to nothing but their own knowledge. Throughout, an Electroencephalogram (EEG device) sat on every participant's head, feeding the research team a live picture of brain activity as the essays took shape. It did not take long for the ChatGPT group's readings to pull away from the other two. Activity in regions linked to memory and analytical reasoning dropped noticeably. Several participants struggled later to recall, or even accurately quote, essays they had written only minutes before. Kosmyna's team gave this effect a name: cognitive debt, borrowed from the language of personal finance. The convenience arrives immediately; the cost turns up afterwards, in this case as weakened memory and independent reasoning.
A less-reported result from the same study points the other way. Participants who started the task unaided, then moved on to using ChatGPT, showed higher brain activity than before, not lower. That detail matters. It indicates the tool itself is not the problem. What seems to matter more is the mental effort a person has already put in before turning to AI for help.
Assistant or Substitute? The Line Is Thinner Than You Think
A study published in Frontiers in Psychology in July 2026 offers a useful distinction that extends the MIT findings. The researchers differentiate between dependent offloading, where a task is handed over because a person doubts their own ability to complete it, and autonomous offloading, where a person chooses to delegate part of a task while remaining in control of the overall process.
Dependent offloading, according to the study, gradually undermines a person's sense of competence, since it signals, even quietly, that they cannot manage without help. Autonomous offloading works differently. Here, too, the scientists are relieved to discover that giving a wide birth to any 'hardest' decisions-just taking AI's assistance where it can make an honest contribution-boosts rather than damages the confidence. The same holds for creative output too. The tool does not change between these two scenarios. What changes is who remains in charge of the process.
The Cost Nobody Is Measuring at Work
This pattern is not confined to academic settings. Earlier, in August 2026 the Conversation collated workplace data which brings up similar issues. Around six out of 10 workers don’t receive formal training on using AI and the same number say they have used artificial intelligence irresponsibly (or covertly) as part of their work.
A separate finding, from a July 2026 study by the Centre for AI Safety, adds further weight to this concern. Even the most capable AI agents tested were unable to complete around 85 per cent of assigned projects to a standard fit for paid, professional work. Put next to the workplace training gap, these numbers point to something organisations cannot really ignore. Many employees are trusting output from tools they were never taught to question, built by systems that make more mistakes than most people give them credit for. That is not a case for banning AI at work. It does mean employees need a clearer sense of where these tools are likely to fail, and the training to recognise it when they do.
Building the Habit of Human-Centred AI Use
Translating this research into practice requires a few deliberate habits.
Think before you prompt:Structuring an argument or outline before opening an AI tool matters more than it might seem. Even five minutes of this kind of preparation involves exactly the mental effort that the MIT study found missing in its heaviest AI users.
Treat AI output as a starting point:Whatever output an AI tool provides should be treated as a rough sketch to work on and not a finished product. Facts need checking. Awkward sentences need rewriting in your own words. At the end of the day, the person whose name goes on the piece is the one who answers for what is in it — which by itself is enough reason to go through it carefully before it is sent out.
Preserve AI-free time:A few hours each week, kept free of AI tools entirely, gives planning and brainstorming room to happen without shortcuts. Teams that build this into their schedule, rather than compressing every stage of a project with AI, generally produce stronger work as a result.
Examine the motivation:Using AI to move through an idea faster is one thing. Using it to dodge thinking about a problem altogether is something else. The second habit tends to catch up with people later, often without their noticing at first.
Conclusion
Whether AI functions as a cognitive assistant or a cognitive substitute depends less on the technology itself and more upon the way it is used. Used to support one's own thinking, AI appears to strengthen cognitive engagement. Used as a substitute for effort, it appears to accumulate a quiet cost, one that eventually surfaces in memory, confidence and the overall quality of work produced. The relevant question, each time AI is used, is a straightforward one: is it being used to assist thinking, or to replace it?
References
2. Chow, A. (2025) 'ChatGPT's Impact On Our Brains According to an MIT Study', TIME
Executive Summary
A video is being shared on social media showing a young calf running behind a milk truck on a road. A large image of a white cow is printed on the back of the truck. The calf appears to mistake the image for its real mother and tries to reach its udders. The video is being widely shared online with emotional captions. Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video is AI-generated.
Claim:
An Instagram user shared the viral video with the caption: “A helpless calf was so hungry that it mistook the cow shown in the poster for its mother and tried to drink milk from her. This heartwarming video of innocence is rapidly going viral on social media.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/Dc5Gh-1DUl7/
Fact Check
To verify the viral claim, we conducted a Google search using relevant keywords but found no credible media reports supporting the claim. In the next step of our research, we extracted keyframes from the video and performed a reverse image search on Google. This led us to the same video on an account named ‘realishai’. Our research found that the account creates and shares AI-generated videos.”
https://www.instagram.com/realishai/
We also found several other AI-generated videos similar to the viral clip on the same account.
In the next step of our research, we scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool Sightengine. According to the results, the viral video is 99 per cent AI-generated.
In the next step of our research, we scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool Wasit AI. According to the results, the viral video is AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research found the viral claim to be false. The research established that the viral video is AI-generated and does not depict a real incident.
