#FactCheck: Debunking the Edited Image Claim of PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed
Executive Summary:
A photoshopped image circulating online suggests Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with militant leader Hafiz Saeed. The actual photograph features PM Modi greeting former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during a surprise diplomatic stopover in Lahore on December 25, 2015.
The Claim:
A widely shared image on social media purportedly shows PM Modi meeting Hafiz Saeed, a declared terrorist. The claim implies Modi is hostile towards India or aligned with terrorists.
Fact Check:
On our research and reverse image search we found that the Press Information Bureau (PIB) had tweeted about the visit on 25 December 2015, noting that PM Narendra Modi was warmly welcomed by then-Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif in Lahore. The tweet included several images from various angles of the original meeting between Modi and Sharif. On the same day, PM Modi also posted a tweet stating he had spoken with Nawaz Sharif and extended birthday wishes. Additionally, no credible reports of any meeting between Modi and Hafiz Saeed, further validating that the viral image is digitally altered.
In our further research we found an identical photo, with former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in place of Hafiz Saeed. This post was shared by Hindustan Times on X on 26 December 2015, pointing to the possibility that the viral image has been manipulated.
Conclusion:
The viral image claiming to show PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed is digitally manipulated. A reverse image search and official posts from the PIB and PM Modi confirm the original photo was taken during Modi’s visit to Lahore in December 2015, where he met Nawaz Sharif. No credible source supports any meeting between Modi and Hafiz Saeed, clearly proving the image is fake.
- Claim: Debunking the Edited Image Claim of PM Modi with Hafiz Saeed
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
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 video is being shared on social media showing a female cricket player seemingly making an impressive catch in the air after rotating 360 degrees. The video is being shared with claims that the player pulled off the extraordinary catch in an incredible feat on the cricket field. Research by CyberPeace found the viral claim to be false. Our research revealed that the viral video was edited with the help of AI. The video uses actual broadcast footage from the 2024 Women’s T20 World Cup match between India and New Zealand, but the 360-degree catch shown in the video was not part of the actual match.
Claim:
A video of a female cricketer making an incredible 360-degree catch is being shared on social media as a real incident from a cricket match.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DdEca3LNT00/
Fact Check
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we conducted a Google search using relevant keywords. However, we did not find any credible media reports confirming the claim.
As part of the next step in our research, we conducted a reverse image search of the keyframes from the video. During the search, we found the same video on a YouTube channel, where it was identified as AI-generated.
As the next step, we scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool Hive Moderation. According to the tool’s results, there is a 70 percent probability that the video is AI-generated.
As part of the next step in our research, we scanned the viral video using an AI detection tool. According to the results, the viral video is AI-generated.
Conclusion
Our research found that the viral video was edited with the help of AI. The video uses actual broadcast footage from the 2024 Women’s T20 World Cup match between India and New Zealand. However, the 360-degree catch shown in the video was not part of the actual match.
Executive Summary: A video circulating on social media claims that retired Lieutenant General P.R. Shankar questioned the capability of newly appointed Army Chief Lt Gen Dhiraj Seth, suggesting he may not be able to effectively counter Pakistan or China. The clip further alleges that the appointment involved political influence and favoritism. CyberPeace Research Wing research found the claim to be false and misleading. The original video contains no such remarks regarding the new Army Chief or his appointment.
Claim: An X user shared the viral video on June 16, 2026, alleging that Lt Gen P.R. Shankar raised concerns over the appointment of the new Army Chief and questioned his competence in handling threats from Pakistan and China. https://x.com/indiain24hr/status/2066916021982908502 , https://archive.ph/vAnjo
Fact Check: A Google search using relevant keywords did not yield any credible media reports supporting the claim, raising initial doubts about its authenticity. A reverse image search of keyframes from the viral video led to a YouTube livestream uploaded on June 13, 2026. The original video showed Lt Gen P.R. Shankar discussing modern military concepts such as drone warfare, rocket systems, artillery and missile warfare (DRaM Warfare), with no reference to Lt Gen Dhiraj Seth or his appointment.
https://www.youtube.com/live/60JMMlHRmjA
Further verification revealed that Lt Gen P.R. Shankar himself has labelled the circulating clip as fake on his official X account and has stated that a formal complaint has been filed against such manipulated content.
https://x.com/palepurshankar/status/2066826145707024778
Additionally, AI detection analysis using Hive Moderation indicated that the audio in the viral video has a 99% probability of being AI-generated.
Conclusion: The research confirms that the viral video is an AI-generated deepfake. The original video does not contain any remarks about Lt Gen Dhiraj Seth or his appointment. The content has been digitally manipulated and is being circulated with a misleading narrative.
