#FactCheck -AI-Generated Video Falsely Shared as IAF Pilot Complaining After Sukhoi-30 Crash

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:

1. Atlas of AI, Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021.
2. Pope Leo XIV. Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. Vatican City: Holy See, 2026.
3. Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum. Vatican City: Holy See, 1891.
4. Pope John Paul II. Laborem Exercens. Vatican City: Holy See, 1981.
5. Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Dignitas Infinita. Vatican City: Holy See, 2024.
6. International Theological Commission. Quo Vadis, Humanitas? Thinking About Christian Anthropology in the Face of Some Scenarios on the Future of Humanity. Vatican City, 2026.
7. 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 featuring Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is being widely circulated on social media with the claim that he issued a strict warning against student protesters. In the viral clip, Singh is allegedly heard saying that the government would not tolerate “anarchy” and that strict action would be taken against those blocking roads, disturbing public order, or damaging government property. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The research revealed that the original video available on Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel was digitally altered by adding AI-generated audio. The statement heard in the viral video is not genuine and was created using artificial intelligence.

‍

Claim:

‍

An account on social media platform X (formerly Twitter), with the username @ForumDefence, shared a video on July 22, 2026, claiming that Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had issued a warning regarding the ongoing student protest. The video features an AI-generated voice attributed to Rajnath Singh, in which he is allegedly heard saying: “Taking advantage of the student movement, the unrest and violence being spread over the past few days are strongly condemned by the government. Expressing one’s views is a democratic right, but breaking the law and creating difficulties for the public in its name will not be tolerated. The government will not tolerate such anarchy. Anyone attempting to block roads, disturb peace, or damage government property will face strict action.”

The link, archive link and screenshot of the post are provided below:

https://x.com/ForumDefence/status/2079960247888756775

https://archive.ph/2DkSj

‍

‍

Fact Check:

‍

To verify the viral claim, the Desk conducted a keyword search on Google. However, no credible news report or official statement was found confirming that Rajnath Singh had made such remarks regarding the student protest.

‍

‍

During further research, the Desk found the original video on the official YouTube channel of Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh. A comparison between the viral clip and the original video showed that the statements attributed to Singh in the viral video did not match his actual remarks. In the original video, Rajnath Singh was speaking about the ongoing protests in Delhi. He said that the protests were a matter of serious concern and expressed that it was unfortunate that some people were attempting to use students and youth as a political tool for their own interests.

He further stated that the government was committed to addressing the concerns of students and youth, and that dialogue and discussion were the appropriate ways to resolve issues in a democracy.

The original video from Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel can be accessed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w73iPTEfKCA

‍

‍

Further analysis of the viral video’s audio was conducted using the AI detection tool Resemble AI. The analysis indicated that the audio had a 99.10 per cent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

The Desk also examined the viral video using the AI detection tool HIVE Moderation. The analysis suggested that the speech used in the video had an 88.1 per cent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

Conclusion:

‍

The research established that the viral video featuring Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has been digitally manipulated by adding AI-generated audio. The statement attributed to Singh regarding strict action against student protesters is not genuine. The original video available on Rajnath Singh’s official YouTube channel contains different remarks, and the viral clip has been circulated with a false and misleading claim.

‍

Introduction

‍
In today’s digital era, warfare is being redefined. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh recently stated that “we are in the age of Grey Zone and hybrid warfare where cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns and economic warfare have become tools to achieve politico-military aims without a single shot being fired.” The crippling cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007, Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections, and the ransomware strike on the Colonial Pipeline in the United States in 2021 all demonstrate how states are now using cyberspace to achieve strategic goals while carefully circumventing the threshold of open war.

Legal Complexities: Attribution, Response, and Accountability

‍

Grey zone warfare challenges the traditional notions of security and international conventions on peace due to inherent challenges such as :

• Attribution
  The first challenge in cyber warfare is determining who is responsible. Threat actors hide behind rented botnets, fake IP addresses, and servers scattered across the globe. Investigators can follow digital trails, but those trails often point to machines, not people. That makes attribution more of an educated guess than a certainty. A wrong guess could lead to misattribution of blame, which could beget a diplomatic crisis, or worse, a military one.
• Proportional Response
  Even if attribution is clear, designing a response can be a challenge. International law does give room for countermeasures if they are both ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’. But defining these qualifiers can be a long-drawn, contested process. Effectively, governments employ softer measures such as protests or sanctions, tighten their cyber defences or, in extreme cases, strike back digitally.
• Accountability
  States can be held responsible for waging cyber attacks under the UN’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility. But these are non-binding and enforcement depends on collective pressure, which can be slow and inconsistent. In cyberspace, accountability often ends up being more symbolic than real, leaving plenty of room for repeat offences.

International and Indian Legal Frameworks

‍

Cyber law is a step behind cyber warfare since existing international frameworks are often inadequate. For example, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, the closest thing we have to a rulebook for cyber conflict, is just a set of guidelines. It says that if a cyber operation can be tied to a state, even through hired hackers or proxies, then that state can be held responsible. But attribution is a major challenge. Similarly, the United Nations has tried to build order through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) that promotes norms like “don’t attack. However, these norms are not binding, effectively leaving practice to diplomacy and trust.

India is susceptible to routine attacks from hostile actors, but does not yet have a dedicated cyber warfare law.  While Section 66F of the IT ACT, 2000, talks about cyber terrorism, and Section 75 lets Indian courts examine crimes committed abroad if they impact India,  grey-zone tactics like fake news campaigns, election meddling, and influence operations fall into a legal vacuum.

Way Forward

‍

• Strengthen International Cooperation
  Frameworks like the Tallinn Manual 2.0 can form the basis for future treaties. Bilateral and multilateral agreements between countries are essential to ensure accountability and cooperation in tackling grey zone activities.
• Develop Grey Zone Legislation
  India currently relies on the IT Act, 2000, but this law needs expansion to specifically cover grey zone tactics such as election interference, propaganda, and large-scale disinformation campaigns.
• Establish Active Monitoring Systems
  India must create robust early detection systems to identify grey zone operations in cyberspace. Agencies can coordinate with social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, X (Twitter), and YouTube, which are often exploited for propaganda and disinformation, to improve monitoring frameworks.
• Dedicated Theatre Commands for Cyber Operations
  Along with the existing Defence Cyber Agency, India should consider specialised theatre commands for grey zone and cyber warfare. This would optimise resources, enhance coordination, and ensure unified command in dealing with hybrid threats.

Conclusion

‍

Grey zone warfare in cyberspace is no longer an optional tactic used by threat actors but a routine activity. India lacks the early detection systems, robust infrastructure, and strong cyber laws to counter grey-zone warfare. To counter this, India needs sharper attribution tools for early detection and must actively push for stronger international rules in this global landscape. More importantly, instead of merely blaming without clear plans, India should focus on preparing for solid retaliation strategies. By doing so, India can also learn to use cyberspace strategically to achieve politico-military aims without firing a single shot.

References

‍

• Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Michael N. Schmitt)
• UN Document on International Law in Cyberspace (UN Digital Library)
• NATO Cyber Defence Policy
• Texas Law Review: State Responsibility and Attribution of Cyber Intrusions
• Deccan Herald: Defence Minister on Grey Zone Warfare
• VisionIAS: Grey Zone Warfare
• Sachin Tiwari, The Reality of Cyber Operations in the Grey Zone

‍