#FactCheck - Stunning 'Mount Kailash' Video Exposed as AI-Generated Illusion!
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A viral video is surfacing claiming to capture an aerial view of Mount Kailash that has breathtaking scenery apparently providing a rare real-life shot of Tibet's sacred mountain. Its authenticity was investigated, and authenticity versus digitally manipulative features were analyzed.
CLAIMS:
The viral video claims to reveal the real aerial shot of Mount Kailash, as if exposing us to the natural beauty of such a hallowed mountain. The video was circulated widely in social media, with users crediting it to be the actual footage of Mount Kailash.
FACTS:
The viral video that was circulated through social media was not real footage of Mount Kailash. The reverse image search revealed that it is an AI-generated video created by Sonam and Namgyal, two Tibet based graphic artists on Midjourney. The advanced digital techniques used helped to provide a realistic lifelike scene in the video.
No media or geographical source has reported or published the video as authentic footage of Mount Kailash. Besides, several visual aspects, including lighting and environmental features, indicate that it is computer-generated.
For further verification, we used Hive Moderation, a deep fake detection tool to conclude whether the video is AI-Generated or Real. It was found to be AI generated.
CONCLUSION:
The viral video claiming to show an aerial view of Mount Kailash is an AI-manipulated creation, not authentic footage of the sacred mountain. This incident highlights the growing influence of AI and CGI in creating realistic but misleading content, emphasizing the need for viewers to verify such visuals through trusted sources before sharing.
- Claim: Digitally Morphed Video of Mt. Kailash, Showcasing Stunning White Clouds
- Claimed On: X (Formerly Known As Twitter), Instagram
- Fact Check: AI-Generated (Checked using Hive Moderation).
Related Blogs
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows a woman using abusive language in front of a camera. Users sharing the clip claim that the woman is a professor at Galgotias University and that the video exposes her alleged reality. However, an research by CyberPeace found the claim to be misleading. The probe revealed that the woman seen in the viral video has no connection with Galgotias University and is not a professor there.Fact-checking further showed that the video is not recent but around seven years old. The woman featured in the clip was identified as Shubhrastha, who is a political strategist by profession.
Claim:
A user on X (formerly Twitter) shared the viral video on February 18, 2026, claiming: “A ‘class in abuse studies’ at Galgotias University? An obscene video of a professor teaching ethics has gone viral. Another shameful chapter has been added to the list of controversies surrounding Galgotias University.” The post further alleged that after falsely claiming a Chinese robot as its own, the university’s “Culture and Ethics” faculty member was seen publicly using abusive language in the viral clip. The post link and its archived version are provided below:
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we extracted key frames from the video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. During the research , we found the same video uploaded on the Indian Spectator’s YouTube channel on June 9, 2018
The video was also found on another YouTube channel, where it had been uploaded on June 12, 2018.
Conclusion
The research clearly establishes that the woman seen in the viral video has no association with Galgotias University and is not a professor there. The clip is also not recent but approximately seven years old. The woman in the video was identified as Shubhrastha, a political strategist.
Executive Summary
On January 22, an Indian Army vehicle met with an accident in Jammu and Kashmir’s Doda district, resulting in the death of 10 soldiers, while several others were injured. In connection with this tragic incident, a photograph is now going viral on social media. The viral image shows an Army vehicle that appears to have fallen into a deep gorge, with several soldiers visible around the site. Users sharing the image are claiming that it depicts the actual scene of the Doda accident.
However, an research by the CyberPeacehas found that the viral image is not genuine. The photograph has been generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and does not represent the real accident. Hence, the viral post is misleading.
Claim
An Instagram user shared the viral image on January 22, 2026, writing:“Deeply saddened by the tragic accident in Doda, Jammu & Kashmir today, in which 10 brave soldiers lost their lives. My heartfelt tribute to the martyrs who laid down their lives in the line of duty.Sincere condolences to the bereaved families, and prayers for the speedy recovery of the injured soldiers.The nation will forever remember your sacrifice.”
The link and screenshot of the post can be seen below.
- https://www.instagram.com/p/DT0UBIRk_3k/
- https://archive.ph/submit/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.instagram.com%2Fp%2FDT0UBIRk_3k%2F+
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we first closely examined the viral image. Several visual inconsistencies were observed. The structure of the soldier visible inside the damaged vehicle appears distorted, and the hands and limbs of people involved in the rescue operation look unnatural. These anomalies raised suspicion that the image might be AI-generated. Based on this, we ran the image through the AI detection tool Hive Moderation, which indicated that the image is over 99.9% likely to be AI-generated.
Another AI image detection tool, Sightengine, also flagged the image as 99% AI-generated.
During further research , we found a report published by Navbharat Times on January 22, 2026, which confirmed that an Indian Army vehicle had indeed fallen into a deep gorge in Doda district. According to officials, 10 soldiers were killed and 7 others were injured, and rescue operations were immediately launched.
However, it is important to note that the image circulating on social media is not an actual photograph from the incident.
Conclusion
CyberPeace research confirms that the viral image linked to the Doda Army vehicle accident has been created using Artificial Intelligence. It is not a real photograph from the incident, and therefore, the viral post is misleading.
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
