#FactCheck : Edited video falsely claims Dr. Vikas Divyakirti targeted Narendra Modi

Introduction

Generative AI models are significant consumers of computational resources and energy required for training and running models. While AI is being hailed as a game-changer, however underneath the shiny exterior, cracks are present which significantly raises concerns for its environmental impact. The development, maintenance, and disposal of AI technology all come with a large carbon footprint. The energy consumption of AI models, particularly large-scale models or image generation systems, these models rely on data centers powered by electricity, often from non-renewable sources, which exacerbates environmental concerns and contributes to substantial carbon emissions.

As AI adoption grows, improving energy efficiency becomes essential. Optimising algorithms, reducing model complexity, and using more efficient hardware can lower the energy footprint of AI systems. Additionally, transitioning to renewable energy sources for data centers can help mitigate their environmental impact. There is a growing need for sustainable AI development, where environmental considerations are integral to model design and deployment.

A breakdown of how generative AI contributes to environmental risks and the pressing need for energy efficiency:

• Gen AI during the training phase has high power consumption, when vast amounts of computational power which is often utilising extensive GPU clusters for weeks or at times even months, consumes a substantial amount of electricity. Post this phase, the inference phase where the deployment of these models takes place for real-time inference, can be energy-extensive especially when we take into account the millions of users of Gen AI.
• The main source of energy used for training and deploying AI models often comes from non-renewable sources which then contribute to the carbon footprint. The data centers where the computations for Gen AI take place are a significant source of carbon emissions if they rely on the use of fossil fuels for their energy needs for the training and deployment of the models. According to a study by MIT, training an AI can produce emissions that are equivalent to around 300 round-trip flights between New York and San Francisco. According to a report by Goldman Sachs, Data Companies will use 8% of US power by 2030, compared to 3% in 2022 as their energy demand grows by 160%.
• The production and disposal of hardware (GPUs, servers) necessary for AI contribute to environmental degradation. Mining for raw materials and disposing of electronic waste (e-waste) are additional environmental concerns. E-waste contains hazardous chemicals, including lead, mercury, and cadmium, that can contaminate soil and water supplies and endanger both human health and the environment. 

Efforts by the Industry to reduce the environmental risk posed by Gen AI 

There are a few examples of how companies are making efforts to reduce their carbon footprint, reduce energy consumption and overall be more environmentally friendly in the long run. Some of the efforts are as under:

• Google's TPUs in particular the Google Tensor are designed specifically for machine learning tasks and offer a higher performance-per-watt ratio compared to traditional GPUs, leading to more efficient AI computations during the shorter periods requiring peak consumption. 
• Researchers at Microsoft, for instance, have developed a so-called “1 bit” architecture that can make LLMs 10 times more energy efficient than the current leading system. This system simplifies the models’ calculations by reducing the values to 0 or 1, slashing power consumption but without sacrificing its performance.
• OpenAI has been working on optimizing the efficiency of its models and exploring ways to reduce the environmental impact of AI and using renewable energy as much as possible including the research into more efficient training methods and model architectures.

Policy Recommendations

We advocate for the sustainable product development process and press the need for Energy Efficiency in AI Models to counter the environmental impact that they have. These improvements would not only be better for the environment but also contribute to the greater and sustainable development of Gen AI.  Some suggestions are as follows:

• AI needs to adopt a Climate justice framework which has been informed by a diverse context and perspectives while working in tandem with the UN’s (Sustainable Development Goals) SDGs.
• Working and developing more efficient algorithms that would require less computational power for both training and inference can reduce energy consumption. Designing more energy-efficient hardware, such as specialized AI accelerators and next-generation GPUs, can help mitigate the environmental impact. 
• Transitioning to renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro) can significantly reduce the carbon footprint associated with AI. The World Economic Forum (WEF) projects that by 2050, the total amount of e-waste generated will have surpassed 120 million metric tonnes.
• Employing techniques like model compression, which reduces the size of AI models without sacrificing performance, can lead to less energy-intensive computations. Optimized models are faster and require less hardware, thus consuming less energy.
• Implementing scattered learning approaches, where models are trained across decentralized devices rather than centralized data centers, can lead to a better distribution of energy load evenly and reduce the overall environmental impact.
• Enhancing the energy efficiency of data centers through better cooling systems, improved energy management practices, and the use of AI for optimizing data center operations can contribute to reduced energy consumption.

Final Words

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are crucial for the AI industry just as other industries as they guide responsible innovation. Aligning AI development with the SDGs will ensure ethical practices, promoting sustainability, equity, and inclusivity. This alignment fosters global trust in AI technologies, encourages investment, and drives solutions to pressing global challenges, such as poverty, education, and climate change, ultimately creating a positive impact on society and the environment. The current state of AI is that it is essentially utilizing enormous power and producing a product not efficiently utilizing the power it gets. AI and its derivatives are stressing the environment in such a manner which if it continues will affect the clean water resources and other non-renewable power generation sources which contributed to the huge carbon footprint of the AI industry as a whole.  

References

• https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/artificial-intelligence/ais-hunger-for-power-can-be-tamed/111302991
• https://earth.org/the-green-dilemma-can-ai-fulfil-its-potential-without-harming-the-environment/ 
• https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/
• https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ais-climate-impact-goes-beyond-its-emissions/ ‍
• https://insights.grcglobalgroup.com/the-environmental-impact-of-ai/

Executive Summary:

In recent times an image showing the President of AIMIM, Asaduddin Owaisi holding a portrait of Hindu deity Lord Rama, has gone viral on different social media platforms. After conducting a reverse image search, CyberPeace Research Team then found that the picture was fake. The screenshot of the Facebook post made by Asaduddin Owaisi in 2018 reveals him holding Ambedkar’s picture. But the photo which has been morphed shows Asaduddin Owaisi holding a picture of Lord Rama with a distorted message gives totally different connotations in the political realm because in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Asaduddin Owaisi is a candidate from Hyderabad. This means there is a need to ensure that before sharing any information one must check it is original in order to eliminate fake news.

Claims:

AIMIM Party leader Asaduddin Owaisi standing with the painting of Hindu god Rama and the caption that reads his interest towards Hindu religion.

Fact Check:

In order to investigate the posts, we ran a reverse search of the image. We identified a photo that was shared on the official Facebook wall of the AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi on 7th April 2018.

Comparing the two photos we found that the painting Asaduddin Owaisi is holding is of B.R Ambedkar whereas the viral image is of Lord Rama, and the original photo was posted in the year 2018.

Hence, it was concluded that the viral image was digitally modified to spread false propaganda.

Conclusion:

The photograph of AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi holding up one painting of Lord Rama is fake as it has been morphed. The photo that Asaduddin Owaisi uploaded on a Facebook page on 7 Apr 2018 depicted him holding a picture of Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. This photograph was digitally altered and the false captions were written to give an altogether different message of Asaduddin Owaisi. It has even highlighted the necessity of fighting fake news that has spread widely through social media platforms especially during the political realm.

• Claim:  AIMIM President Asaduddin Owaisi was holding a painting of the Hindu god Lord Rama in his hand.
• Claimed on: X (Formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍

‍

Introduction 

The link between social media and misinformation is undeniable. Misinformation, particularly the kind that evokes emotion, spreads like wildfire on social media and has serious consequences, like undermining democratic processes, discrediting science, and promulgating hateful discourses which may incite physical violence. If left unchecked, misinformation propagated through social media has the potential to incite social disorder, as seen in countless ethnic clashes worldwide.  This is why social media platforms have been under growing pressure to combat misinformation and have been developing models such as fact-checking services and community notes to check its spread. This article explores the pros and cons of the models and evaluates their broader implications for online information integrity.

How the Models Work 

1. Third-Party Fact-Checking Model (formerly used by Meta) Meta initiated this program in 2016 after claims of extraterritorial election tampering through dis/misinformation on its platforms. It entered partnerships with third-party organizations like AFP and specialist sites like Lead Stories and PolitiFact, which are certified by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) for meeting neutrality, independence, and editorial quality standards. These fact-checkers identify misleading claims that go viral on platforms and publish verified articles on their websites, providing correct information. They also submit this to Meta through an interface, which may link the fact-checked article to the social media post that contains factually incorrect claims. The post then gets flagged for false or misleading content, and a link to the article appears under the post for users to refer to. This content will be demoted in the platform algorithm, though not removed entirely unless it violates Community Standards. However, in January 2025, Meta announced it was scrapping this program and beginning to test X’s Community Notes Model in the USA, before rolling it out in the rest of the world. It alleges that the independent fact-checking model is riddled with personal biases, lacks transparency in decision-making, and has evolved into a censoring tool. 
2. Community Notes Model ( Used by X and being tested by Meta): This model relies on crowdsourced contributors who can sign up for the program, write contextual notes on posts and rate the notes made by other users on X. The platform uses a bridging algorithm to display those notes publicly, which receive cross-ideological consensus from voters across the political spectrum. It does this by boosting those notes that receive support despite the political leaning of the voters, which it measures through their engagements with previous notes. The benefit of this system is that it is less likely for biases to creep into the flagging mechanism. Further, the process is relatively more transparent than an independent fact-checking mechanism since all Community Notes contributions are publicly available for inspection, and the ranking algorithm can be accessed by anyone, allowing for external evaluation of the system by anyone. 

CyberPeace Insights

Meta’s uptake of a crowdsourced model signals social media’s shift toward decentralized content moderation, giving users more influence in what gets flagged and why. However, the model’s reliance on diverse agreements can be a time-consuming process. A study (by Wirtschafter & Majumder, 2023) shows that only about 12.5 per cent of all submitted notes are seen by the public, making most misleading content go unchecked. Further, many notes on divisive issues like politics and elections may not see the light of day since reaching a consensus on such topics is hard. This means that many misleading posts may not be publicly flagged at all, thereby hindering risk mitigation efforts. This casts aspersions on the model’s ability to check the virality of posts which can have adverse societal impacts, especially on vulnerable communities. On the other hand, the fact-checking model suffers from a lack of transparency, which has damaged user trust and led to allegations of bias. 

Since both models have their advantages and disadvantages, the future of misinformation control will require a hybrid approach. Data accuracy and polarization through social media are issues bigger than an exclusive tool or model can effectively handle. Thus, platforms can combine expert validation with crowdsourced input to allow for accuracy, transparency, and scalability. 

Conclusion 

Meta’s shift to a crowdsourced model of fact-checking is likely to have bigger implications on public discourse since social media platforms hold immense power in terms of how their policies affect politics, the economy, and societal relations at large.  This change comes against the background of sweeping cost-cutting in the tech industry, political changes in the USA and abroad, and increasing attempts to make Big Tech platforms more accountable in jurisdictions like the EU and Australia, which are known for their welfare-oriented policies. These co-occurring contestations are likely to inform the direction the development of misinformation-countering tactics will take.  Until then, the crowdsourcing model is still in development, and its efficacy is yet to be seen, especially regarding polarizing topics. 

References 

• https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/new-youtube-notes-feature-to-help-users-add-context-to-videos
• https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/315131736305613?id=673052479947730
• http://techxplore.com/news/2025-01-meta-fact.html 
• https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ 
• https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction 
• https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/01/14/do-community-notes-work/?utm_source=chatgpt.com 
• https://www.techpolicy.press/community-notes-and-its-narrow-understanding-of-disinformation/ 
• https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/metas-shift-to-community-notes-model-proves-that-we-can-fix-big-problems-without-big-government/ 
• https://tsjournal.org/index.php/jots/article/view/139/57 

‍