#FactCheck: Fake Viral Video Claiming Vice Admiral AN Pramod saying that next time if Pakistan Attack we will complain to US and Prez Trump.
Executive Summary:
A viral video (archived link) circulating on social media claims that Vice Admiral AN Pramod stated India would seek assistance from the United States and President Trump if Pakistan launched an attack, portraying India as dependent rather than self-reliant. Research traced the extended footage to the Press Information Bureau’s official YouTube channel, published on 11 May 2025. In the authentic video, the Vice Admiral makes no such remark and instead concludes his statement with, “That’s all.” Further analysis using the AI Detection tool confirmed that the viral clip was digitally manipulated with AI-generated audio, misrepresenting his actual words.
Claim:
In the viral video an X user posted with the caption
”India sells itself as a regional superpower, but its Navy Chief’s own words betray that image. If Pakistan attacks, their plan is to involve Trump, not fight back. This isn’t strategic partnership; it’s dependency in uniform”.
In the video the Vice Admiral was heard saying
“We have worked out among three services, this time if Pakistan dares take any action, and Pakistan knows it, what we are going to do. We will complain against Pakistan to the United States of America and President Trump, like we did earlier in Operation Sindoor.”

Fact Check:
Upon conducting a reverse image search on key frames from the video, we located the full version of the video on the official YouTube channel of the Press Information Bureau (PIB), published on 11 May 2025. In this video, at the 59:57-minute mark, the Vice Admiral can be heard saying:
“This time if Pakistan dares take any action, and Pakistan knows it, what we are going to do. That’s all.”

Further analysis was conducted using the Hive Moderation tool to examine the authenticity of the circulating clip. The results indicated that the video had been artificially generated, with clear signs of AI manipulation. This suggests that the content was not genuine but rather created with the intent to mislead viewers and spread misinformation.

Conclusion:
The viral video attributing remarks to Vice Admiral AN Pramod about India seeking U.S. and President Trump’s intervention against Pakistan is misleading. The extended speech, available on the Press Information Bureau’s official YouTube channel, contained no such statement. Instead of the alleged claim, the Vice Admiral concluded his comments by saying, “That’s all.” AI analysis using Hive Moderation further indicated that the viral clip had been artificially manipulated, with fabricated audio inserted to misrepresent his words. These findings confirm that the video is altered and does not reflect the Vice Admiral’s actual remarks.
Claim: Fake Viral Video Claiming Vice Admiral AN Pramod saying that next time if Pakistan Attack we will complain to US and Prez Trump.
Claimed On: Social Media
Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs

Introduction:
Technology has become a vital part of everyone’s life nowadays, it occupies essential activities of a person’s life whether we are working or playing and studying. I would say from education to corporate, technology makes everything easier and simpler to achieve the goals for a particular thing. Corporate companies are using technology for their day-to-day work and there are many law-based foundations that are publishing blogs and papers for legal awareness, many lawyers use internet technology for promoting themselves which amounts to growth in their work. Some legal work can now be done by machines, which was previously unthinkable. Large disputes frequently have many documents to review. Armies of young lawyers and paralegals are typically assigned to review these documents. This work can be done by a properly trained machine. Machine drafting of documents is also gaining popularity. We’ve also seen systems that can forecast the outcome of a dispute. We are starting to see machines take on many tasks that we once thought was solely the domain of lawyers.
How to expand law firms and the corporate world with the help of technology?
If we talk about how lawyers’ lives will be impacted by technology then I would explain about law students first. Students are the one who is utilizing the technology at its best for their work, tech could be helpful in students’ lives. as law students use SCC online and manupatra, which are used for case laws. And during their law internships, they use it to help their seniors to find appropriate cases for them. and use it as well for their college research work. SCC and manupatra are very big platforms by which we can say if students use technology for their careers, it will impact their law career in the best ways.
A lawyer running a law firm is not a small task, and there are plenty of obstacles to that, such as a lack of tech solutions, failure to fulfil demands, and inability to innovate, these obstacles prevent the growth of some firms. The right legal tech can grow an organization or a law firm and there will be fewer obstacles.
Technology can be proven as a good mechanism to grow the law firm, as everything depends on tech, from court work to corporate. If we talk about covid during 2020, everything shifted towards the virtual world, court hearings switched to online mode due to covid which proved as a bone to the legal system as the case hearings were speedy and there was no physical contact due to that.
Legal automation is also helping law firms to grow in a competitive world. And it has other benefits also like shifting tedious tasks from humans to machines, allowing the lawyer to work on more valuable work. I would say that small firms should also need to embrace automation for competition in the corporate sector. Today, artificial intelligence offers a solution to solve or at least make the access-to-justice issue better and completely transform our traditional legal system.
There was a world-cited author, Richard Susskind, OBE, who talked about the future of law and lawyers and he wrote a book, Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Richard argues that technology is going to bring about a fascinating decade of change in the legal sector and transform our court system. Although automating our old ways of working plays a part in this, even more, critical is that artificial intelligence and technology will help give more individuals access to justice.
The rise of big data has also resulted in rapid identification systems, which allow police officers to quickly see an individual’s criminal history through a simple search.The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) system matches individuals with their criminal history information using biometrics such as fingerprints, palm prints, iris recognition, and facial recognition. The NGI’s current technologies are constantly being updated, and new ones are being added, to make the NGI the most comprehensive way to gather up-to-date information on the person being examined
During covid, there were e-courts services in courts, and lawyers and judges were taking cases online. After the covid, the use of technology increased in the law field also from litigation to corporate. As technology can also safeguard confidential information between parties and lawyers. There was ODR, (online dispute resolution) happening meetings that were taking place online mode.
File sharing is inevitable in the practice of law. Yet sometimes the most common ways of sharing (think email) are not always the most secure. With the remote office, the boom has come an increased need for alternate file-sharing solutions. There is data encryption to protect data as it is a reliable method to protect confidential data and information.
Conclusion-
Technology has been playing a vital role in the legal industry and has increased the efficiency of legal offices and the productivity of clerical workers. With the advent of legal tech, there is greater transparency between legal firms and clients. Clients know how many fees they must pay and can keep track of the day-to-day progress of the lawyer on their case. Also, there is no doubt that technology, if used correctly, is fast and efficient – more than any human individual. This can prove to be of great assistance to any law firm. Lawyers of the future will be the ones who create the systems that will solve their client’s problems. These legal professionals will include legal knowledge engineers, legal risk managers, system developers, design thinking experts, and others. These people will use technology to create new ways of solving legal problems. In many ways, the legal sector is experiencing the same digitization that other industries have, and because it is so document-intensive, it is actually an industry that stands to benefit greatly from what technology has to offer.

Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide

Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fast transforming our future in the digital world, transforming healthcare, finance, education, and cybersecurity. But alongside this technology, bad actors are also weaponising it. More and more, state-sponsored cyber actors are misusing AI tools such as ChatGPT and other generative models to automate disinformation, enable cyberattacks, and speed up social engineering operations. This write-up explores why and how AI, in the form of large language models (LLMs), is being exploited in cyber operations associated with adversarial states, and the necessity for international vigilance, regulation, and AI safety guidelines.
The Shift: AI as a Cyber Weapon
State-sponsored threat actors are misusing tools such as ChatGPT to turbocharge their cyber arsenal.
- Phishing Campaigns using AI- Generative AI allows for highly convincing and grammatically correct phishing emails. Unlike the shoddily written scams of yesteryears, these AI-based messages are tailored according to the victim's location, language, and professional background, increasing the attack success rate considerably. Example: It has recently been reported by OpenAI and Microsoft that Russian and North Korean APTs have employed LLMs to create customised phishing baits and malware obfuscation notes.
- Malware Obfuscation and Script Generation- Big Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT may be used by cyber attackers to help write, debug, and camouflage malicious scripts. While the majority of AI instruments contain safety mechanisms to guard against abuse, threat actors often exploit "jailbreaking" to evade these protections. Once such constraints are lifted, the model can be utilised to develop polymorphic malware that alters its code composition to avoid detection. It can also be used to obfuscate PowerShell or Python scripts to render them difficult for conventional antivirus software to identify. Also, LLMs have been employed to propose techniques for backdoor installation, additional facilitating stealthy access to hijacked systems.
- Disinformation and Narrative Manipulation
State-sponsored cyber actors are increasingly employing AI to scale up and automate disinformation operations, especially on election, protest, and geopolitical dispute days. With LLMs' assistance, these actors can create massive amounts of ersatz news stories, deepfake interview transcripts, imitation social media posts, and bogus public remarks on online forums and petitions. The localisation of content makes this strategy especially perilous, as messages are written with cultural and linguistic specificity, making them credible and more difficult to detect. The ultimate aim is to seed societal unrest, manipulate public sentiments, and erode faith in democratic institutions.
Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI – OpenAI Report (June 2025)
OpenAI released a comprehensive threat intelligence report called "Disrupting Malicious Uses of AI" and the “Staying ahead of threat actors in the age of AI”, which outlined how state-affiliated actors had been testing and misusing its language models for malicious intent. The report named few advanced persistent threat (APT) groups, each attributed to particular nation-states. OpenAI highlighted that the threat actors used the models mostly for enhancing linguistic quality, generating social engineering content, and expanding operations. Significantly, the report mentioned that the tools were not utilized to produce malware, but rather to support preparatory and communicative phases of larger cyber operations.
AI Jailbreaking: Dodging Safety Measures
One of the largest worries is how malicious users can "jailbreak" AI models, misleading them into generating banned content using adversarial input. Some methods employed are:
- Roleplay: Simulating the AI being a professional criminal advisor
- Obfuscation: Concealing requests with code or jargon
- Language Switching: Proposing sensitive inquiries in less frequently moderated languages
- Prompt Injection: Lacing dangerous requests within innocent-appearing questions
These methods have enabled attackers to bypass moderation tools, transforming otherwise moral tools into cybercrime instruments.
Conclusion
As AI generations evolve and become more accessible, its application by state-sponsored cyber actors is unprecedentedly threatening global cybersecurity. The distinction between nation-state intelligence collection and cybercrime is eroding, with AI serving as a multiplier of adversarial campaigns. AI tools such as ChatGPT, which were created for benevolent purposes, can be targeted to multiply phishing, propaganda, and social engineering attacks. The cross-border governance, ethical development practices, and cyber hygiene practices need to be encouraged. AI needs to be shaped not only by innovation but by responsibility.
References
- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2024/02/14/staying-ahead-of-threat-actors-in-the-age-of-ai/
- https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/openais-chatgpt-hit-nation-state-hackers-a-28640
- https://oecd.ai/en/incidents/2025-06-13-b5e9
- https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/security-insider/meet-the-experts/emerging-AI-tactics-in-use-by-threat-actors
- https://www.wired.com/story/youre-not-ready-for-ai-hacker-agents/
- https://www.cert-in.org.in/PDF/Digital_Threat_Report_2024.pdf
- https://cdn.openai.com/threat-intelligence-reports/5f73af09-a3a3-4a55-992e-069237681620/disrupting-malicious-uses-of-ai-june-2025.pdf