#FactCheck - AI Generated image of Virat Kohli falsely claims to be sand art of a child
Executive Summary:
The picture of a boy making sand art of Indian Cricketer Virat Kohli spreading in social media, claims to be false. The picture which was portrayed, revealed not to be a real sand art. The analyses using AI technology like 'Hive' and ‘Content at scale AI detection’ confirms that the images are entirely generated by artificial intelligence. The netizens are sharing these pictures in social media without knowing that it is computer generated by deep fake techniques.
Claims:
The collage of beautiful pictures displays a young boy creating sand art of Indian Cricketer Virat Kohli.
Fact Check:
When we checked on the posts, we found some anomalies in each photo. Those anomalies are common in AI-generated images.
The anomalies such as the abnormal shape of the child’s feet, blended logo with sand color in the second image, and the wrong spelling ‘spoot’ instead of ‘sport’n were seen in the picture. The cricket bat is straight which in the case of sand made portrait it’s odd. In the left hand of the child, there’s a tattoo imprinted while in other photos the child's left hand has no tattoo. Additionally, the face of the boy in the second image does not match the face in other images. These made us more suspicious of the images being a synthetic media.
We then checked on an AI-generated image detection tool named, ‘Hive’. Hive was found to be 99.99% AI-generated. We then checked from another detection tool named, “Content at scale”
Hence, we conclude that the viral collage of images is AI-generated but not sand art of any child. The Claim made is false and misleading.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the claim that the pictures showing a sand art image of Indian cricket star Virat Kohli made by a child is false. Using an AI technology detection tool and analyzing the photos, it appears that they were probably created by an AI image-generated tool rather than by a real sand artist. Therefore, the images do not accurately represent the alleged claim and creator.
Claim: A young boy has created sand art of Indian Cricketer Virat Kohli
Claimed on: X, Facebook, Instagram
Fact Check: Fake & Misleading
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A collage of two images circulating on social media is falsely claiming that the street vendor who served jhalmuri to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during an election campaign in Jhargram was actually a personnel from the Special Protection Group (SPG). Research by the CyberPeace Research Wing found the claim to be false and misleading, indicating that it is being shared as part of election-related misinformation. The vendor and the SPG personnel seen in the viral collage are two different individuals.
Claim
An X (formerly Twitter) user, “@Jeetuburdak,” shared the viral collage on April 21, 2026, with the caption: “Another scam! The jhalmuri seller turned out to be an SPG commando.” The post quickly gained traction online.
Fact Check
A close examination of the two images used in the collage shows clear visual differences between the individuals. The person seen in SPG uniform does not match the street vendor who served food to the prime minister. Reverse image searches were conducted using multiple tools to trace the origin of the images. While no verifiable source was found linking the SPG personnel’s image to the vendor, several credible reports and videos featured the actual jhalmuri seller from the campaign event.
- https://x.com/ANI/status/2045859146508177911?s=20
- https://news24online.com/cities/kolkata/who-is-the-man-that-served-jhalmuri-to-pm-modi-know-his-daily-income-and-what-he-talked-about-with-pm/811123/
According to media reports, the prime minister briefly stopped at a roadside stall during the campaign in Jhargram and interacted with the vendor while enjoying jhalmuri. The vendor was later interviewed by multiple outlets, further confirming his identity as a local seller. Additionally, technical facial comparison analysis using online tools also indicated that the two individuals in the viral collage are not the same person.
Conclusion
The claim that the jhalmuri vendor was an SPG commando is false and misleading. The viral collage shows two different individuals, and there is no evidence to support the allegation.
Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide
Executive Summary:
A video clip featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the newly elected Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national president, Nitin Nabin, is going viral on social media. In the clip, PM Modi is seen apparently pushing Nitin Nabin, prompting claims that Nabin had accidentally stepped between the Prime Minister and the camera, after which Modi allegedly pushed him out of the frame. CyberPeace’s research found that the viral clip is misleading and cropped. The original, unedited video shows Prime Minister Modi gesturing for Nitin Nabin to move ahead and offer floral tributes to the statues of Bharatiya Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mukherjee and Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya at the BJP headquarters in Delhi. It is pertinent to note that on 20 January 2026, BJP leader Nitin Nabin was elected as the party’s national president. Several senior BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were present at the event. During his address, PM Modi remarked, “Nitin Nabin ji is my boss, and I am a party worker.” The statement received widespread attention, following which multiple videos linking to the remark began circulating on social media. A Facebook user shared the viral clip with a Hindi caption alleging that despite calling himself a “party worker,” PM Modi pushed his “boss” out of the camera frame. The post further mocked the position of BJP president, claiming it to be merely ceremonial. (Archived link)
To verify the claim, we conducted a reverse image and video search, which led us to a longer version of the video uploaded on news agency INS’s official X handle on 20 January 2026. The caption stated that PM Modi, BJP president Nitin Nabin, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, Home Minister Amit Shah, Union Minister Nitin Gadkari and senior leader J.P. Nadda paid tributes to Syama Prasad Mukherjee and Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya at the BJP headquarters.
In the full video, PM Modi and Nitin Nabin are seen walking together. PM Modi then requests Nitin Nabin to proceed first for the floral tribute, placing his hand on Nabin’s back as a gesture to move forward. The viral clip selectively cuts this moment out of context and loops it to create a misleading impression. The complete footage clearly shows that PM Modi asked Nitin Nabin to offer tributes first, after which other leaders followed. There is no indication whatsoever that Nitin Nabin was pushed out of the camera frame, as claimed in the viral posts. We also found the live broadcast of the ‘Bharatiya Janata Party Sangathan Parv’ on BJP’s official YouTube channel. The same visuals appear at the end of the live stream, further confirming that PM Modi was merely gesturing for Nitin Nabin to proceed first.
Additionally, photographs available on Nitin Nabin’s official X handle show him offering floral tributes ahead of PM Modi, who is seen standing behind and waiting.
Conclusion:
CyberPeace research confirms that the viral clip has been cropped and shared with a false narrative. In the original context, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was respectfully inviting BJP national president Nitin Nabin to move ahead and pay tributes, not pushing him out of the camera frame.
