#FactCheck-AI-Generated Image Collage Falsely Linked to Recent Nepal Floods
Executive Summary
A collage made by combining two images is going viral on social media. It is being shared as being related to the recent devastating floods in Nepal. One image in the collage shows a beautiful town before the floods, while the other depicts the destruction caused by the flooding. A research done by the Research Wing of the CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. The research revealed that the viral image collage circulating on social media is AI-generated and is being falsely shared as visuals of the recent floods in Nepal.
Claim:
A user on social media platform Facebook shared the viral collage with the caption: “Nepal in the morning, Nepal in the evening. The tragedy has shaken all of humanity. The flood originating from China-occupied Tibet devastated Nepal in an instant.”
The link to the post, its archived version, and a screenshot are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1630488505774559&set=a.467756888714399
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral images, the desk first conducted a reverse image search. However, the search did not lead us to any credible media reports or original sources featuring these images. We then closely examined the images. The analysis revealed several anomalies in the structure of the buildings, the vehicles visible on the road, and other elements in the images, further strengthening the suspicion that they were AI-generated. We then scanned the viral image using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. The tool’s analysis indicated a 99 percent likelihood that the image was AI-generated.
We then scanned the viral image using the AI detection tool Sightengine as well. The tool’s analysis indicated a 99 percent likelihood that the image was AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral collage of images being shared on social media is AI-generated and is being falsely linked to the recent floods in Nepal.
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 showing a body lying on the ground is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that it shows a Bangladeshi infiltrator who was killed by the Border Security Force (BSF) during an infiltration attempt along the Tripura border. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be misleading. While reports confirm that in June 2026 a Bangladeshi national was killed in BSF firing in Tripura’s Unakoti district, the viral video is unrelated to that incident.
Claim:
A Facebook reel shared the video claiming that BSF recently shot dead a Bangladeshi infiltrator at the Tripura border, and that the visuals depict the same incident. Link: https://www.facebook.com/reel/1561542888951793
Fact Check:
A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led to reports published by Bhaskar English, which carried the same visuals. The reports identified the deceased as Haris Nazir Dar, a Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist, who was killed during Operation Akhal on 2 August 2025 in Jammu and Kashmir. https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/national/news/2-soldiers-martyred-in-jks-kulgam-3-terrorists-killed-135638183.html
Further verification also found similar coverage on WION, confirming the same context of the incident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhk-7QjPKK8
Operation Akhal was a major joint counter-terrorism operation conducted in August 2025 in the Akhal forests of Kulgam district, South Kashmir, by the Indian Army’s Chinar Corps, Jammu and Kashmir Police, and the Special Operations Group (SOG). https://newsonair.gov.in/kulgam-encounter-joint-operation-continues-in-akhal-forests-three-terrorists-killed/
Conclusion:
The research confirms that the viral video claiming to show a Bangladeshi infiltrator killed by the BSF at the Tripura border is misleading. The footage is from an August 2025 counter-terrorism operation in Jammu and Kashmir and shows Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Haris Nazir Dar killed during Operation Akhal.
Executive Summary
A video is being widely shared on social media with the claim that a youth was killed in police firing in Bihar’s Siwan. The viral 1-minute-22-second video shows a young man standing with a stick in his hand. Moments later, gunfire is heard, after which he appears to be injured and collapses. His associates are then seen carrying him away from the spot. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found that the claim is false. The research revealed that the viral video is not from Bihar’s Siwan but dates back to the student protests in Bangladesh in July 2024.
Claim:
The video was shared on X with a caption claiming that it shows a police firing incident in Bihar’s Siwan, where a student was allegedly killed after police opened fire with AK-47 rifles.
The caption stated, “This video is going viral on social media. It is being claimed that this video is from Siwan, Bihar, where police fired AK-47s at students. During the firing, a youth was hit by two bullets and died.”
https://x.com/Deshmukh_0/status/2082053481993740701
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search. During the research, we found a longer version of the same video uploaded on the YouTube channel of a Bangladeshi news portal on July 16, 2024.
According to the video description, the footage shows the death of student Abu Sayed during protests in Rangpur, Bangladesh, on July 16, 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuf7H0MNIaI
Further research led us to a report published by bdnews24, which also carried visuals matching those seen in the viral video. The report stated that on July 16, 2024, Abu Sayed, an English Department student at Begum Rokeya University in Rangpur, Bangladesh, died after being shot during the protests.
https://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/87ef7e69c496#google_vignette
Conclusion:
The evidence gathered during the research confirms that the viral video claiming to show a youth being killed in police firing in Bihar’s Siwan is misleading. The video is actually from Bangladesh and shows the death of student Abu Sayed during the July 2024 protests in Rangpur. The old footage is being shared with a false claim linking it to a recent incident in Bihar.
