#FactCheck - Viral Videos of Mutated Animals Debunked as AI-Generated
Executive Summary:
Several videos claiming to show bizarre, mutated animals with features such as seal's body and cow's head have gone viral on social media. Upon thorough investigation, these claims were debunked and found to be false. No credible source of such creatures was found and closer examination revealed anomalies typical of AI-generated content, such as unnatural leg movements, unnatural head movements and joined shoes of spectators. AI material detectors confirmed the artificial nature of these videos. Further, digital creators were found posting similar fabricated videos. Thus, these viral videos are conclusively identified as AI-generated and not real depictions of mutated animals.

Claims:
Viral videos show sea creatures with the head of a cow and the head of a Tiger.



Fact Check:
On receiving several videos of bizarre mutated animals, we searched for credible sources that have been covered in the news but found none. We then thoroughly watched the video and found certain anomalies that are generally seen in AI manipulated images.



Taking a cue from this, we checked all the videos in the AI video detection tool named TrueMedia, The detection tool found the audio of the video to be AI-generated. We divided the video into keyframes, the detection found the depicting image to be AI-generated.


In the same way, we investigated the second video. We analyzed the video and then divided the video into keyframes and analyzed it with an AI-Detection tool named True Media.

It was found to be suspicious and so we analyzed the frame of the video.

The detection tool found it to be AI-generated, so we are certain with the fact that the video is AI manipulated. We analyzed the final third video and found it to be suspicious by the detection tool.


The detection tool found the frame of the video to be A.I. manipulated from which it is certain that the video is A.I. manipulated. Hence, the claim made in all the 3 videos is misleading and fake.
Conclusion:
The viral videos claiming to show mutated animals with features like seal's body and cow's head are AI-generated and not real. A thorough investigation by the CyberPeace Research Team found multiple anomalies in AI-generated content and AI-content detectors confirmed the manipulation of A.I. fabrication. Therefore, the claims made in these videos are false.
- Claim: Viral videos show sea creatures with the head of a cow, the head of a Tiger, head of a bull.
- Claimed on: YouTube
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs

AI systems have grown in both popularity and complexity on which they operate. They are enhancing accessibility for all, including people with disabilities, by revolutionising sectors including healthcare, education, and public services. We are at the stage where AI-powered solutions that can help people with mental, physical, visual or hearing impairments perform everyday and complex tasks are being created.
Generative AI is now being used to amplify human capability. The development of tools for speech-to-text and image recognition is helping in facilitating communication and interaction for visually or hearing-impaired individuals, and smart prosthetics are providing tailored support. Unfortunately, even with these developments, PWDs have continued to face challenges. Therefore, it is important to balance innovation with ethical considerations aand ensuring that these technologies are designed with qualities like privacy, equity, and inclusivity in mind.
Access to Tech: the Barriers Faced by PWDs
PWDs face several barriers while accessing technology. Identifying these challenges is important as they lack computer accessibility, in the use of hardware and software, which has become a norm in life nowadays. Website functions that only work when users click with a mouse, self-service kiosks without accessibility features, touch screens without screen reader software or tactile keyboards, and out-of-order equipment, such as lifts, captioning mirrors and description headsets, are just some difficulties that they face in their day-to-day life.
While they are helpful, much of the current technology doesn’t fully address all disabilities. For example, many assistive devices focus on visual or mobility impairments, but they fall short of addressing cognitive or sensory conditions. In addition to this, these solutions often lack personalisation, making them less effective for individuals with diverse needs. AI has significant potential to bridge this gap. With adaptive systems like voice assistants, real-time translation, and personalised features, AI can create more inclusive solutions, improving access to both digital and physical spaces for everyone.
The Importance of Inclusive AI Design
Creating an Inclusive AI design is important. It ensures that PWDs are not excluded from technological advancements because of the impairments that they are suffering from. The concept of an ‘inclusive or universal’ design promotes creating products and services that are usable for the widest possible range of people. Tech Developers have an ethical responsibility to create advancements in AI that serve everyone. Accessibility features should be built into the core design. They should be treated as a practice rather than an afterthought. However, bias in AI development often stems from data of a non-representative nature, or assumptions can lead to systems that overlook or poorly serve PWDs. If AI algorithms are trained on limited or biased data, they risk excluding marginalised groups, making ethical, inclusive design a necessity for equity and accessibility.
Regulatory Efforts to Ensure Accessible AI
In India, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 impresses upon the need to provide PWDs with equal accessibility to technology. Subsequently, the DPDP Act of 2023 highlights data privacy concerns for the disabled under section 9 to process their data.
On the international level, the newly incorporated EU’s AI Act mandates measures for transparent, safe, and fair access to AI systems along with including measures that are related to accessibility.
In the US, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 508 of the 1998 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are the primary legislations that work on promoting digital accessibility in public services.
Challenges in implementing Regulations for AI Accessibility for PWDs
Defining the term ‘inclusive AI’ is a challenge. When working on implementing regulations and compliance for the accessibility of AI, if the primary work is left undefined, it makes the task of creating tools to address the issue an issue. The rapid pace of tech and AI development has more often outpaced legal frameworks in development. This leads to the creation of enforcement gaps. Countries like Canada and tech industry giants like Microsoft and Google are leading forces behind creating accessible AI innovations. Their regulatory frameworks focus on developing AI ethics with inclusivity and collaboration with disability rights groups.
India’s efforts in creating an inclusive AI include the redesign of the Sugamya Bharat app. The app had been created to assist PWDs and the elderly. It will now be incorporating AI features specifically to assist the intended users.
Though AI development has opportunities for inclusivity, unregulated development can be risky. Regulation plays a critical role in ensuring that AI-driven solutions prioritise inclusivity, fairness, and accessibility, harnessing AI’s potential to empower PWDs and contribute to a more inclusive society.
Conclusion
AI development can offer PWDs unprecedented independence and accessibility in leading their lives. The development of AI while keeping inclusivity and fairness in mind is needed to be prioritised. AI that is free from bias, combined with robust regulatory frameworks, together are essential in ensuring that AI serves equitably. Collaborations between tech developers, policymakers, and disability advocates need to be supported and promoted to build AI systems. This will in turn work towards bridging the accessibility gaps for PWDs. As AI continues to evolve, maintaining a steadfast commitment to inclusivity will be crucial in preventing marginalisation and advancing true technological progress for all.
References
- https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/over-1-4k-accessibility-related-complaints-filed-on-govt-app-75-solved-124090800118_1.html
- https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/06/16/empowering-individuals-with-disabilities-through-ai-technology/ .
- https://hbr.org/2023/08/designing-generative-ai-to-work-for-people-with-disabilities
- Thehttps://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/05/07/using-ai-to-empower-people-with-disabilities/andensur,personalization

The recent Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, that came into force in August, has been one of the most widely anticipated regulations in the digital entertainment industry. Among provisions such as promoting esports and licensing of online gaming, the legislation notably introduces a blanket ban on real-money gaming (RMG). The rationale behind this was to reduce its addictive effects, protect minors, and limit the circulation of black-money. However, in reality, the Act has spawned apprehension about the legislative process, regulatory redundancy, and unintended consequences that can shift users and revenue to offshore operators.
From Debate to Prohibition: How the Act was Passed
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act was passed as a central law, providing the earlier fragmented state laws on online betting and gambling with an overarching framework. Proponents argue that, among other provisions, some kind of unified national framework was needed to deal with the scale of online betting due to its detrimental impact on young users. The current Act is a direct transition to criminalisation rather than the swings of self-regulation and partial restrictions used during the previous decade of incremental experiments in regulation. Stakeholders in the industry believe that this type of sudden, blanket action creates uncertainty and erodes confidence in the system in the long run. Further, critics have pointed out that the Bill was passed without adequate Parliamentary deliberation. A question has been raised about whether procedural safeguards were upheld.
Prohibition of Online RMG
Within the Indian context, a distinction has long been drawn between games of skill and games of chance, with the latter, like a lottery or a casino, being severely prohibited under state laws, whereas the former, like rummy or fantasy sports, have generally been allowed after being recognized as skill-based by court authorities. The Online Gaming Act of 2025 abolishes this distinction on the internet, thus banning all RMG actions that include cash transactions, regardless of skill or chance. The act also criminalises the advertising, facilitation, and hosting of such sites, thereby penalizing offshore operators with an Indian customer focus, and subjecting their payment gateways, app stores, and advertisers under its jurisdiction to penalties.
The Problem of Overlap
One potential issue that the Act presents is its overlap with the existing laws. The IT Rules 2023 mandate intermediaries in the gaming sector to appoint compliance officers, submit monthly reports, and undergo due diligence. The new Act introduces a three-level classification of games, whereas the advisories of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Consumer Protection Act treat online betting as an unfair trade practice.
This multiplicity of regulations builds a maze where different Ministries and state governments have overlapping jurisdiction. Policy experts caution that such an overlap can create enforcement challenges, punish players who act within the law, and leave offshore malefactors undetected.
Unintended Consequences: Driving Users Offshore
Outright prohibition will hardly ever remove demand; it will only push it out. Offshore sites have taken advantage of the situation as Indian operators like Dream11 shut down their money games after the ban. It has already been reported that there is aggressive advertising by foreign betting companies that are not registered in India, most of which have backend infrastructure that cannot be regulated by the Act (Storyboard18).
This diversion of users to unregulated markets has two main risks. First, Indian players are deprived of the consumer protection offered to them in local regulation, and their data can be sent to suspicious foreign organizations. Second, the government loses control over the money flow that can be transferred via informal channels or cryptocurrencies or other obscure systems. Industry analysts are alerting that such developments may only worsen the issue of black-money instead of solving it (IGamingBusiness).
Advertising, Age Gating, and Digital Rights
The Act has also strengthened advertisement regulations, aligning with advisories issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India, which prohibits the targeting of minors. However, critics believe that the application remains inadequately enforced, and children can with comparative ease access unregulated overseas applications. In the absence of complementary digital literacy programs and strong parental controls, these limitations can be effectively superficial instead of real.
Privacy advocates also warn that frequent prompts, vague messages, or invasive surveillance can weaken the digital rights of users instead of strengthening them. Overregulation has also been found to create banner blindness in global contexts where users ignore warnings without first clearly understanding them.
Enforcement Challenges
The Act puts a lot of responsibilities on many stakeholders, including the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Platforms like Google Play and Apple App Store are expected to verify government-approved lists of compliant gaming apps and remove non-compliant or banned ones, as directed by the MIB and the RBI. Although this pressure may motivate intermediaries to collaborate, it may also have a risk of overreach when it is applied unequally or in a political way.
According to the experts, the solution should be underpinned by technology itself. Artificial intelligence can be used to identify illegal advertisements, track illegal gaming in children, and trace payment streams. At the same time, the regulators should be able to issue final lists of either compliant or non-compliant applications to advise the consumers and intermediaries alike. Without such practical provisions, enforcement risks remaining patchy.
Online Gaming Rules
On 1 October 2025, the government issued a draft of the Online Gaming Rules in accordance with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act. The regulations focus on the creation of the compliance frameworks, define the classification of the allowed gaming activities, and prescribe grievance-redressal mechanisms aiming to promote the protection of the players and procedural transparency. However, the draft does not revisit or soften the existing blanket prohibition on real-money gaming (RMG) and, hence, the questions about the effectiveness of enforcement and regulatory clarity remain open (Times of India, 2025).
Protecting Consumers Without Stifling Innovation
The ban highlights a larger conflict, i.e., the protection of the vulnerable users without stifling an industry that has traditionally contributed to innovation, jobs, and the collection of tax revenue. Online gaming has significantly added to the GST collections, and the sudden shakeup brings fiscal concerns (Reuters).
Several legal objections to the Act have already been brought, asking whether the Act is constitutional, especially as to whether the restrictions are proportional to the right to trade. The outcome of such cases will define the future trajectory of the digital economy of India (Reuters).
Way Forward
Instead of outright prohibition, a more balanced approach that incorporates regulation and consumer protection is suggested by the experts. Key measures could include:
- A definite difference between games of skill and games of chance, with proportionate regulation.
- Age confirmation and campaign against online illiteracy to protect the underage population.
- Enhanced advertising and payments compliance requirements and enforceable non-compliance penalty.
- Coordinated oversight among different ministries to prevent duplication and regulatory struggle.
- Leveraging AI and fintech to track illegal financial activities (black money flows) and developing innovation.
Conclusion
The Online Gaming Act 2025 addresses social issues, such as addiction, monetary risk, and child safety, that require governance interventions. However, the path it follows to this end, that of total prohibition, is more likely to spawn a new set of issues instead of providing solutions because it will send consumers to offshore sites, undermine consumer rights, and slow innovation.
For India, the real challenge is not whether to prohibit online money gaming but how to create a balanced, transparent, and enforceable framework that protects users while fostering a responsible gaming ecosystem. India can reduce the adverse consequences of online betting without keeping the industry in the shadows with better coordination, reasonable use of technology, and balanced protection.
References:
- India's Dream11, top gaming apps halt money-based games after ban
- India online gambling ban could drive punters to black market
- Offshore betting firms with backend ops in India not covered by online gaming law
- The Great Gamble: India’s Online Gaming Ban, The GST Battle, And What Lies Ahead.
- Game Over for Online Money Games? An Analysis of the Online Gaming Act 2025
- Government gambles heavily on prohibiting online money gaming
- Online gaming regulation: New rules to take effect from October 1; government stresses consultative approach with industry

In an era defined by perpetual technological advancement, the hitherto uncharted territories of the human experience are progressively being illuminated by the luminous glow of innovation. The construct of privacy, once a straightforward concept involving personal secrets and solitude, has evolved into a complex web of data protection, consent, and digital rights. This notion of privacy, which often feels as though it elusively ebbs and flows like the ghost of a bygone epoch, is now confronted with a novel intruder – neurotechnology – which promises to redefine the very essence of individual sanctity.
Why Neuro Rights
At the forefront of this existential conversation lie ventures like Elon Musk's Neuralink. This company, which finds itself at the confluence of fantastical dreams and tangible reality, teases a future where the contents of our thoughts could be rendered as accessible as the words we speak. An existence where machines not only decipher our mental whispers but hold the potential to echo back, reshaping our cognitive landscapes. This startling innovation sets the stage for the emergence of 'neurorights' – a paradigm aimed at erecting a metaphorical firewall around the synapses and neurons that compose our innermost selves.
At institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley, researchers, under the aegis of cognitive scientists like Jack Gallant, are already drawing the map of once-inaccessible territories within the mind. Gallant's landmark study, which involved decoding the brain activity of volunteers as they absorbed visual stimuli, opened Pandora's box regarding the implications of mind-reading. The paper published a decade ago, was an inchoate step toward understanding the narrative woven within the cerebral cortex. Although his work yielded only a rough sketch of the observed video content, it heralded an era where thought could be translated into observable media.
The Growth
This rapid acceleration of neuro-technological prowess has not gone unnoticed on the sociopolitical stage. In a pioneering spirit reminiscent of the robust legislative eagerness of early democracies, Chile boldly stepped into the global spotlight in 2021 by legislating neurorights. The Chilean senate's decision to constitutionalize these rights sent ripples the world over, signalling an acknowledgement that the evolution of brain-computer interfaces was advancing at a daunting pace. The initiative was spearheaded by visionaries like Guido Girardi, a former senator whose legislative foresight drew clear parallels between the disruptive advent of social media and the potential upheaval posed by emergent neurotechnology.
Pursuit of Regulation
Yet the pursuit of regulation in such an embryonic field is riddled with intellectual quandaries and ethical mazes. Advocates like Allan McCay articulate the delicate tightrope that policy-makers must traverse. The perils of premature regulation are as formidable as the risks of a delayed response – the former potentially stifling innovation, the latter risking a landscape where technological advances could outpace societal control, engendering a future fraught with unforeseen backlashes.
Such is the dichotomy embodied in the story of Ian Burkhart, whose life was irrevocably altered by the intervention of neurotechnology. Burkhart's experience, transitioning from quadriplegia to digital dexterity through sheer force of thought, epitomizes the utopic potential of neuronal interfaces. Yet, McCay issues a solemn reminder that with great power comes great potential for misuse, highlighting contentious ethical issues such as the potential for the criminal justice system to over extend its reach into the neural recesses of the human psyche.
Firmly ensconced within this brave new world, the quest for prudence is of paramount importance. McCay advocates for a dyadic approach, where privacy is vehemently protected and the workings of technology proffered with crystal-clear transparency. The clandestine machinations of AI and the danger of algorithmic bias necessitate a vigorous, ethical architecture to govern this new frontier.
As legal frameworks around the globe wrestle with the implications of neurotechnology, countries like India, with their burgeoning jurisprudence regarding privacy, offer a vantage point into the potential shape of forthcoming legislation. Jurists and technology lawyers, including Jaideep Reddy, acknowledge ongoing protections yet underscore the imperativeness of continued discourse to gauge the adequacy of current laws in this nascent arena.
Conclusion
The dialogue surrounding neurorights emerges, not merely as another thread in our social fabric, but as a tapestry unto itself – intricately woven with the threads of autonomy, liberty, and privacy. As we hover at the edge of tomorrow, these conversations crystallize into an imperative collective undertaking, promising to define the sanctity of cognitive liberty. The issue at hand is nothing less than a societal reckoning with the final frontier – the safeguarding of the privacy of our thoughts.
References: