#FactCheck-AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as Real Footage of Iran Attack
Executive Summary
A video showing flames and thick smoke rising over a densely populated city at night is being widely circulated on social media. The video is being shared with the claim that it shows the actual visuals of explosions and destruction caused by an attack on Iran. CyberPeace Research Wing ’s research found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the video is not real footage but an AI-generated video, which is being circulated with a false claim.
Claim
A user on social media platform Instagram shared the viral video on July 17, 2026, claiming that it shows the real visuals of an attack on Iran and the massive explosions caused by it.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Da1_gaXyyoP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted multiple keyframes from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research, we did not find any credible news report, verified video, or authentic source confirming that the footage was related to any attack on Iran. To further examine the authenticity of the video, we analysed it using multiple AI detection tools. First, we scanned the video using Hive Moderation. The tool’s analysis indicated that the video had a 94.9% probability of being AI-generated, suggesting that the footage may have been created using Artificial Intelligence.
For additional verification, we analysed the video using DetectVideo AI. The tool also indicated that the video was likely AI-generated, with an estimated 80% probability.
We further checked the video using another AI detection tool, AI or Not, which suggested that the footage had a 64% probability of being AI-generated.
At the final stage of verification, we used WasIt.AI, which also indicated that the video was likely AI-generated, with an 88% probability.
Conclusion
CyberPeace Research Wing ’s research found that the viral video does not show real footage of an attack on Iran.The video was created using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and is being falsely shared as authentic visuals of explosions and destruction caused by an attack on Iran. Users are advised to verify such sensational claims before sharing them online.
Related Blogs
Key points: Data collection, Protecting Children, and Awareness
Introduction
The evolution of technology has drastically changed over the period impacting mankind and their lifestyle. For every single smallest aspect, humans are reliable on the computers they have manufactured. The use of AI has almost hindered mankind, kids these days are more lethargic to work and write more sensibly on their own, but they are more likely interested in television, video games, mobile games, etc. School kids use AI just to complete their homework. Is it a good sign for the country’s future? The study suggests that Tools like ChatGPT is a threat to humans/a child’s potential to be creative and make original content requiring a human writer’s insight. Tools like ChatGPT can remove students’ artistic voices rather than using their unique writing style.
Does any of those browsers or search engines use your search history against you? or How do non-users tend to lose their private info on such a search engine?
Are there any safety measures that one’s the government of a particular country taking to protect their people’s rights?
Some of us might wonder how these two fancy-looking world merge and into, Arey they a boon or curse?
So here’s the top news getting flooded all over the world through the internet,
“Italian Agency impose strict measures on OpenAI’s ChatGPT”
Italy becomes the first Western European country to take serious measures about using Open AI ChatGPT. An Italian Data Protection agency named Garante has set mandates on ChatGPT. Garante has raised concerns about privacy violations and the inability to verify the age of users. Garate has also claimed that the AI ChatBot is violating the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In a press release, Garante demanded OpenAI take necessary actions.
To begin with, Garante has demanded that OpenAI’s ChatGPT should increase its transparency and give a comprehensive statement about its data processing practices. OpenAI must specify between obtaining user consent for processing users’ data to train its AI model or may rely on a legitimate basis. OpenAI must maintain the privacy of users’ data.
In addition, ChatGPT should also take measures to prevent minors from accessing the technology at such an early stage of life, which could hinder their brain power. ChatGPT should add some age verification system to prevent minors from accessing explicit content. Moreover, Garante suggests that OpenAI should spread awareness among its users about their data being processed to train its AI model. Garante has set a deadline of April 30 for ChatGPT to complete the given tasks. Until then, its service should be banned in the country.
Child safety while surfing on ChatGpt
Italian agency demands age limitation to surf and an age verification method to exclude users under the age of 13, and parental authority should be required for users between the ages of 13 and 18. As this is a matter of security. Children might get exposed to explicit content invalidated to their age or explore illegitimate content. The AI chatbot doesn’t have the sense to determine which content is appropriate for the underage audience. Due to tools like chatbots, subjective things/information are already available to young students, leading to endangered irrespective of their future. As ChatGpt can hinder their potential and ability to create original and creative content for young minds. It is a threat motivation to humans’ motivation to write. Moreover, when students need time to think and analyze they get lethargic due to tools like ChatGPT, and the practice they need fades away.
Collection of User’s Data
According to some reports from the company’s privacy policy, OpenAI ChatGpt collects an assortment of additional data. The first two questions are for a free trial when a session starts. It asks for your Login, and SignUp through your Gmail account collects your IP address, browser type, and the data you put in the form of input, i.e. it collects data on the user’s interaction with the website, It also collects the user’s data like session time, cookies through third party may tend to sell it to an unspecified third party.
This snapshot shows that they have added a few things after Garante’s draft.
Conclusion
AI chatbot – Chatgpt is an advanced technology tool that makes work a little easier, but one surfing on such tools must stay aware of the information they are asking for. Such AI bots are trained to understand mankind, its job is to give a helping hand and not doltish. In case of this, some people tend to provide sensitive information unknowingly, young minds get exposed to explicit information. Such bots need to put some age limitations. Such innovations keep taking place, but it’s individuals’ responsibility what actions to be allowed to access their online connected device. Unlike the Italian Agency, which has taken some preventive measures to keep their user’s data safe, also looking at the adverse effect of such chatbots on a young mind.
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 viral claim circulated in social media that Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant wore clothes made of pure gold during their pre-wedding cruise party in Europe. Thorough analysis revealed abnormalities in image quality, particularly between the face, neck, and hands compared to the claimed gold clothing, leads to possible AI manipulation. A keyword search found no credible news reports or authentic images supporting this claim. Further analysis using AI detection tools, TrueMedia and Hive Moderator, confirmed substantial evidence of AI fabrication, with a high probability of the image being AI-generated or a deep fake. Additionally, a photo from a previous event at Jio World Plaza matched with the pose of the manipulated image, further denying the claim and indicating that the image of Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant wearing golden outfit during their pre-wedding cruise was digitally altered.
Claims:
Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant wore clothes made of pure gold during their pre-wedding cruise party in Europe.
Fact Check:
When we received the posts, we found anomalies that were usually found in edited images or AI manipulated images, particularly between the face, neck, and hands.
It’s very unusual in any image. So we then checked in AI Image detection software named Hive Moderation detection tool and found it to be 95.9% AI manipulated.
We also checked with another widely used AI detection tool named True Media. True Media also found it to be 100% to be made using AI.
This implies that the image is AI-generated. To find the original image that has been edited, we did keyword search. We found an image with the same pose as in the manipulated image, with the title "Radhika Merchant, Anant Ambani pose with Mukesh Ambani at Jio World Plaza opening”. The two images can be compared to verify that the digitally altered image is the same.
Hence, it’s confirmed that the viral image is digitally altered and has no connection with the 2nd Pre-wedding cruise party in Europe. Thus the viral image is fake and misleading.
Conclusion:
The claim that Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant wore clothes made of pure gold at their pre-wedding cruise party in Europe is false. The analysis of the image showed signs of manipulation, and a lack of credible news reports or authentic photos supports that it was likely digitally altered. AI detection tools confirmed a high probability that the image was fake, and a comparison with a genuine photo from another event revealed that the image had been edited. Therefore, the claim is false and misleading.
- Claim: Anant Ambani and Radhika Merchant wore clothes made of pure gold during their pre-wedding cruise party in Europe.
- Claimed on: YouTube, LinkedIn, Instagram
- Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
