#FactCheck-Elephant Video Predates Nepal Floods, Street Video Likely AI-Generated

Executive Summary

‍

A video is going viral on social media showing ‘injured’ security personnel being carried into ambulances. The clip is being shared with claims that a terrorist attack recently took place in Kishtwar. The video surfaced nearly a year after the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, adding to confusion among users online. Research by CyberPeace Research Wing found that the claim is false. The viral video is actually from a mock drill conducted in Kishtwar, not a real terror incident.

‍

Claim

‍

An Instagram user ‘thenewjbharat’ shared the video on April 30, 2026, claiming that a terrorist attack had taken place again in Kishtwar.

‍https://www.instagram.com/thenewjbharat/

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search using Google Lens. This led us to the same clip uploaded on April 24, 2026 by an Instagram user ‘kishtwar_breaking_news’. According to the post, the video shows a mock drill conducted by local authorities to assess emergency preparedness. Officials and rescue teams participated in the exercise.

• https://www.instagram.com/reels/DXfzq4aiawb/

‍

‍

We also found a related news video uploaded on April 23, 2026, by the YouTube channel of Daily Excelsior, which featured visuals matching the viral clip. The report confirmed that the drill was carried out to evaluate readiness for emergency situations.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research confirms that the viral video does not show a real terrorist attack. It is footage from a mock drill conducted in Kishtwar and is being falsely shared with misleading claims.

‍

Introduction

The recent inauguration of the Google Safety Engineering Centre (GSEC) in Hyderabad on 18th June, 2025, marks a pivotal moment not just for India, but for the entire Asia-Pacific region’s digital future. As only the fourth such centre in the world after Munich, Dublin, and Málaga, its presence signals a shift in how AI safety, cybersecurity, and digital trust are being decentralised, leading to a more globalised and inclusive tech ecosystem. India’s digitisation over the years has grown at a rapid scale, introducing millions of first-time internet users, who, depending on their awareness, are susceptible to online scams, phishing, deepfakes, and AI-driven fraud. The establishment of GSEC is not just about launching a facility but a step towards addressing AI readiness, user protection, and ecosystem resilience.

Building a Safer Digital Future in the Global South

The GSEC is set to operationalise the Google Safety Charter, designed around three core pillars: empowering users by protecting them from online fraud, strengthening government cybersecurity and enterprise, and advancing responsible AI in the platform design and execution. This represents a shift from the standard reactive safety responses to proactive, AI-driven risk mitigation. The goal is to make safety tools not only effective, but tailored to threats unique to the Global South, from multilingual phishing to financial fraud via unofficial lending apps. This centre is expected to stimulate regional cybersecurity ecosystems by creating jobs, fostering public-private partnerships, and enabling collaboration across academia, law enforcement, civil society, and startups. In doing so, it positions Asia-Pacific not as a consumer of the standard Western safety solutions but as an active contributor to the next generation of digital safeguards and customised solutions.

Previous piloted solutions by Google include DigiKavach, a real-time fraud detection framework, and tools like spam protection in mobile operating systems and app vetting mechanisms. What GSEC might aid with is the scaling and integration of these efforts into systems-level responses, where threat detection, safety warnings, and reporting mechanisms, etc., would ensure seamless coordination and response across platforms. This reimagines safety as a core design principle in India’s digital public infrastructure rather than focusing on attack-based response. 

CyberPeace Insights

The launch aligns with events such as the AI Readiness Methodology Conference recently held in New Delhi, which brought together researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders to discuss ethical, secure, and inclusive AI implementation. As the world grapples with how to deal with AI technologies ranging from generative content to algorithmic decisions, centres like GSEC can play a critical role in defining the safeguards and governance structures that can support rapid innovation without compromising public trust and safety. The region’s experiences and innovations in AI governance must shape global norms, and the role of Tech firms in doing so is significant. Apart from this, efforts with respect to creating digital infrastructure and safety centres addressing their protection resonate with India’s vision of becoming a global leader in AI. 

References

‍

• https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/google-safety-engineering-centre-india-inaugurated-in-hyderabad/article69708279.ece 
• https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/google-launches-safety-charter-to-secure-indias-ai-future-flags-online-fraud-and-cyber-threats-480718-2025-06-17?utm_source=recengine&utm_medium=web&referral=yes&utm_content=footerstrip-1&t_source=recengine&t_medium=web&t_content=footerstrip-1&t_psl=False
• https://blog.google/intl/en-in/partnering-indias-success-in-a-new-digital-paradigm/ 
• https://blog.google/intl/en-in/company-news/googles-safety-charter-for-indias-ai-led-transformation/
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/google-rolls-out-hyderabad-hub-for-online-safety-launches-first-indian-google-safety-engineering-centre/articleshow/121928037.cms?from=mdr

‍

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.

‍