#FactCheck - Viral Video Claiming Attack on Burj Khalifa is AI-Generated

The Ghibli trend has been in the news for the past couple of weeks for multiple reasons, be it good or bad. The nostalgia that everyone has for the art form has made people turn a blind eye to what the trend means to the artists who painstakingly create the art. The open-source platforms may be trained on artistic material without the artist's ‘explicit permission’ making it so that the rights of the artists are downgraded. The artistic community has reached a level where they are questioning their ability to create, which can be recreated by this software in a couple of seconds and without any thought as to what it is doing. OpenAI’s update on ChatGPT makes it simple for users to create illustrations that are like the style created by Hayao Miyazaki and made into anything from personal pictures to movie scenes and making them into Ghibli-style art. The updates in AI to generate art, including Ghibli-style, may raise critical questions about artistic integrity, intellectual property, and data privacy risks.

AI and the Democratization of Creativity

AI-powered tools have lowered barriers and enable more people to engage with artistic expression. AI allows people to create appealing content in the form of art regardless of their artistic capabilities. The update of ChatGPT has made it so that art has been democratized, and the abilities of the user don't matter. It makes art accessible, efficient and a creative experiment to many. 

Unfortunately, these developments also pose challenges for the original artistry and the labour of human creators. The concern doesn't just stop at AI replacing artists, but also about the potential misuse it can lead to. This includes unauthorized replication of distinct styles or deepfake applications. When it is used ethically, AI can enhance artistic processes. It can assist with repetitive tasks, improving efficiency, and enabling creative experimentation. 

However, its ability to mimic existing styles raises concerns. The potential that AI-generated content has could lead to a devaluation of human artists' work, potential copyright issues, and even data privacy risks. Unauthorized training of AI models that create art can be exploited for misinformation and deepfakes, making human oversight essential. Few artists believe that AI artworks are disrupting the accepted norms of the art world.  Additionally, AI can misinterpret prompts, producing distorted or unethical imagery that contradicts artistic intent and cultural values, highlighting the critical need for human oversight.

The Ethical and Legal Dilemmas

The main dilemma that surrounds trends such as the Ghibli trend is whether it compromises human efforts by blurring the line between inspiration and infringement of artistic freedom. Further, an issue that is not considered by most users is whether the personal content (personal pictures in this case) uploaded on AI models is posing a risk to their privacy. This leads to the issue where the potential misuse of AI-generated content can be used to spread misinformation through misleading or inappropriate visuals. 

The negative effects can only be balanced if a policy framework is created that can ensure the fair use of AI in Art. Further, this should ensure that the training of AI models is done in a manner that is fair to the artists who are the original creators of a style. Human oversight is needed to moderate the AI-generated content.  This oversight can be created by creating ethical AI usage guidelines for platforms that host AI-generated art. 

Conclusion: What Can Potentially Be Done?

AI is not a replacement for human effort, it is to ease human effort. We need to promote a balanced AI approach that protects the integrity of artists and, at the same time, continues to foster innovation. And finally, strengthening copyright laws to address AI-generated content. Labelling AI content and ensuring that this content is disclosed as AI-generated is the first step. Furthermore, there should be fair compensation made to the human artists based on whose work the AI model is trained. There is an increasing need to create global AI ethics guidelines to ensure that there is transparency, ethical use and human oversight in AI-driven art. The need of the hour is that industries should work collaboratively with regulators to ensure that there is responsible use of AI. 

References

• https://medium.com/@haileyq/my-experience-with-studio-ghibli-style-ai-art-ethical-debates-in-the-gpt-4o-era-b84e5a24cb60 
• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241018-ai-art-the-end-of-creativity-or-a-new-movement 

‍

INTRODUCTION:

The Ministry of Defence has recently designated the Additional Directorate General of Strategic Communication in the Indian Army as the nodal officer now authorised to send removal requests and notices to social media intermediaries regarding posts consisting of illegal content with respect to the Army. Earlier, this process was followed through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). The recent designation gives the Army the autonomy of circumnavigating the old process and enables them to send direct notices (as deemed appropriate by the government and its agency). Let us look at the legal framework that allows them to do so and its policy implications. 

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK:

Section 69 of the IT Act 2000 gives the government the power to issue directions for interception, monitoring or decryption of any data/information through any computer resource. This is done so under six reasons related to:

• Upholding the sovereignty or integrity of India
• Security of the state
• Defence of India
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order or for preventing incitement of any cognisable offence
• Investigations of offences related to the aforementioned reasons 

Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act 2000 is another aspect of the law related to the removal of data on notification. It allows for all intermediaries (including internet service providers and social media platforms) to have safety harbours from the liability of the content put out by third parties/users on their platforms. This, however, is only applicable when the intermediary has either received a notification or actual knowledge by the appropriate government or its agency of the data on their platform being used for unlawful acts and complies promptly by removing the data from their platform without tampering with evidence.

PLAUSIBLE REASONS FOR POLICY DECISION:

Cases related to the Indian Army are sensitive for a number of reasons, rooted in the fact that they directly pertain to the nation's security, integrity and sovereignty. The impact of the spread of misinformation and disinformation is almost instantaneous and the stakes are high in any circumstance, but exceptionally so when it comes to the Armed Forces and the nation’s security status. A mechanism to tackle cases of such a security level should allow for quick action from the authorities. Owing to the change in the ability to notify directly rather than through another ministry, the army can now promptly deal with these concerns as and when they arise. One immediate benefit of this change is that the forces can now quickly respond to instances where foreign states and actors with malicious intent put out information that can cause harm to the nation’s interests, image and integrity. 

This step helps the forces deal with countering misinformation, ensuring national security and even addressing issues of online propaganda. An example of sensitive content about the army leading to legal intervention is the case of Delhi-based magazine The Caravan. The Defence Ministry, along with the Intelligence Bureau and the Jammu and Kashmir police ordered the Delhi-based publication to remove an article claiming the murder and torture of civilians by the Indian army in Jammu and Kashmir citing the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The instruction was challenged by the magazine in the courts.

CONCLUSION:

This move brings with it potential benefits along with risks and the focus should always be on maintaining a balanced approach. Transparency and accountability are imperative and checks on related guidelines so as to prevent misuse while simultaneously protecting national security should be at the centre of the objective of the policy approach. Misinformation in and about the armed forces must be dealt with immediately.

REFERENCES:

• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/army-can-now-directly-issue-notices-to-remove-online-posts-101730313177838.html
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/inside-79-3-b-the-content-blocking-provision-with-many-legal-grey-areas-101706987924882.html
• https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-magazine-to-take-down-article-on-army-torture-and-murder-in-jammu/article67840790.ece
• https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/army-gains-authority-to-directly-issue-notice-to-take-down-online-posts

‍

Artificial intelligence is growing at a rapid pace, with startups promising breakthroughs in industries and attracting billions in investment. Among these was Builder.ai, a London-based company founded in 2016 by an Indian entrepreneur. Once valued at over $1.5 billion, it was known for its game-changing platform that could let anyone build custom apps quickly and affordably with the help of AI.

Yet in 2025, Builder.ai collapsed dramatically, filing for bankruptcy across multiple countries and laying off nearly 80% of its workforce. What was once a celebrated unicorn has become a cautionary tale, exposing not only the risks of hype-driven growth in AI but also inflicting reputational damage on Indian founders in the global startup ecosystem.

The Rise: Big Promises, Big Investors

Builder.ai branded itself as a no-code/low-code app development platform, where its AI assistant “Natasha” would guide customers in creating apps without technical expertise. The pitch was simple and attractive: app development was made “as easy as ordering pizza.” The story resonated with major investors. Backed by SoftBank, Microsoft, and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, Builder.ai raised more than $450 million. It scaled rapidly, positioning itself as one of Europe’s most promising AI startups.

The Cracks Appear

Behind the glamour, the first cracks appeared as early as 2019, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Builder.ai’s platform depended far more on human engineers than on the AI automation it advertised. In reality, the much-hyped AI assistant “Natasha” was often just “a guy instead”, i.e., skilled developers in India manually writing code behind the scenes on whose backs the company expanded aggressively. 

The real blow came from Builder.ai’s finances. The company was accused of inflating revenue figures by 300%, with alleged use of round-tripping tactics involving fake invoices that inflated financials.  While it publicly projected revenues of $220 million in 2024, its actual figure was closer to $55 million. When this reality surfaced, investor confidence was lost quickly, and the company’s liabilities ballooned to nearly $100 million, with less than $ 10 million in assets remaining. 

Collapse and Legal Scrutiny

By 2025, the company’s foundations had crumbled. The founder stepped down as CEO but retained the unusual title of “Chief Wizard.” Massive debts to AWS, Microsoft, and other partners mounted into the hundreds of millions. Assets were seized, and the company filed for bankruptcy in the U.S., UK, India, and the UAE.

For clients, the collapse meant abandoned projects. For employees, around 1,000 of them, it meant sudden unemployment. And for investors, it was a devastating loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York have since launched investigations into potential fraud and investor misrepresentation.

Reputational Damage: Impact on Indian Founders

Perhaps the most enduring consequence of Builder.ai’s downfall is the hit to the credibility of Indian founders on the global stage.

For years, Indian entrepreneurs have earned trust in global tech circles, with leaders heading companies from Google to Microsoft. Indian-led startups abroad were viewed as reliable, innovative, and growth-driven. Builder.ai’s collapse disrupts this narrative.

The allegations of inflated revenue, AI exaggeration, and questionable governance risk reinforcing skepticism among global investors regarding Indian organisational ethics. For other Indian founders seeking international capital, the road has now become tougher: stricter due diligence, harsher scrutiny of claims, and slower trust-building.

This reputational damage arrives at a critical time when India is positioning itself as a global hub for AI and leads the world in AI skill penetration. Rather than highlighting the strength of India’s entrepreneurial and talent ecosystem, the fall of Builder.ai has drawn attention to the risks of overpromising and underdelivering.

Conclusion

The fall of Builder.ai is more than the bankruptcy of one AI unicorn. It is a warning to companies against chasing hyper growth fueled by the riding of the AI wave. While the company’s downfall exposed flaws in governance and accountability, its deeper impact lies in how it dented trust. To drive AI and technology innovation, startups must move beyond flashy valuations and commit to authentic innovation, transparency, and financial integrity.

References

• https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/lending/moodys-early-warning-in-action-builder-ai.html#:~:text=Despite%20marketing%20itself%20as%20an,fake%20invoices%20that%20inflated%20financials. 
• https://today-innovation.webflow.io/unveiling-the-power-of-natasha-an-ai-assistant-of-builder-ai-to-revolutionize-app-generation 
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/builder-ais-shocking-450m-fall-170009323.html
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2108810 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/how-a-london-based-startups-artificial-ai-gambit-backfired-ws-l-19613692.htm# 

‍