
Google's AI video tool amplifies fears of an increase in misinformation
In both Tehran and Tel Aviv, residents have faced heightened anxiety in recent days as the threat of missile strikes looms over their communities. Alongside the very real concerns for physical safety, there is growing alarm over the role of misinformation, particularly content generated by artificial intelligence, in shaping public perception.
GeoConfirmed, an online verification platform, has reported an increase in AI-generated misinformation, including fabricated videos of air strikes that never occurred, both in Iran and Israel.
This follows a similar wave of manipulated footage that circulated during recent protests in Los Angeles, which were sparked by a rise in immigration raids in the second-most populous city in the United States.
The developments are part of a broader trend of politically charged events being exploited to spread false or misleading narratives.
The launch of a new AI product by one of the largest tech companies in the world has added to those concerns of detecting fact from fiction.
Late last month, Google's AI research division, DeepMind, released Veo 3, a tool capable of generating eight-second videos from text prompts. The system, one of the most comprehensive ones currently available for free, produces highly realistic visuals and sound that can be difficult for the average viewer to distinguish from real footage.
To see exactly what it can do, Al Jazeera created a fake video in minutes using a prompt depicting a protester in New York claiming to be paid to attend, a common talking point Republicans historically have used to delegitimise protests, accompanied by footage that appeared to show violent unrest. The final product was nearly indistinguishable from authentic footage.
Al Jazeera also created videos showing fake missile strikes in both Tehran and Tel Aviv using the prompts 'show me a bombing in Tel Aviv' and then a similar prompt for Tehran. Veo 3 says on its website that it blocks 'harmful requests and results', but Al Jazeera had no problems making these fake videos.
'I recently created a completely synthetic video of myself speaking at Web Summit using nothing but a single photograph and a few dollars. It fooled my own team, trusted colleagues, and security experts,' said Ben Colman, CEO of deepfake detection firm Reality Defender, in an interview with Al Jazeera.
'If I can do this in minutes, imagine what motivated bad actors are already doing with unlimited time and resources.'
He added, 'We're not preparing for a future threat. We're already behind in a race that started the moment Veo 3 launched. Robust solutions do exist and work — just not the ones the model makers are offering as the be-all, end-all.'
Google says it is taking the issue seriously.
'We're committed to developing AI responsibly, and we have clear policies to protect users from harm and govern the use of our AI tools. Any content generated with Google AI includes a SynthID watermark, and we add a visible watermark to Veo videos as well,' a company spokesperson told Al Jazeera.
'They don't care about customers'
However, experts say the tool was released before those features were fully implemented, a move some believe was reckless.
Joshua McKenty, CEO of deepfake detection company Polyguard, said that Google rushed the product to market because it had been lagging behind competitors like OpenAI and Microsoft, which have released more user-friendly and publicised tools. Google did not respond to these claims.
'Google's trying to win an argument that their AI matters when they've been losing dramatically,' McKenty said. 'They're like the third horse in a two-horse race. They don't care about customers. They care about their own shiny tech.'
That sentiment was echoed by Sukrit Venkatagiri, an assistant professor of computer science at Swarthmore College.
'Companies are in a weird bind. If you don't develop generative AI, you're seen as falling behind and your stock takes a hit,' he said. 'But they also have a responsibility to make these products safe when deployed in the real world. I don't think anyone cares about that right now. All of these companies are putting profit — or the promise of profit — over safety.'
Google's own research, published last year, acknowledged the threat generative AI poses.
'The explosion of generative AI-based methods has inflamed these concerns [about misinformation], as they can synthesise highly realistic audio and visual content as well as natural, fluent text at a scale previously impossible without an enormous amount of manual labour,' the study read.
Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google DeepMind, has long warned his colleagues in the AI industry against prioritising speed over safety. 'I would advocate not moving fast and breaking things,' he told Time in 2023.
He declined Al Jazeera's request for an interview.
Yet despite such warnings, Google released Veo 3 before fully implementing safeguards, leading to incidents like the one the National Guard had to debunk in Los Angeles after a TikTok account made a fake 'day in the life' video of a soldier that said he was preparing for 'today's gassing' — referring to releasing tear gas on protesters.
Mimicking real events
The implications of Veo 3 extend far beyond protest footage. In the days following its release, several fabricated videos mimicking real news broadcasts circulated on social media, including one of a false report about a home break-in that included CNN graphics.
Another clip falsely claimed that JK Rowling's yacht sank off the coast of Turkiye after an orca attack, attributing the report to Alejandra Caraballo of Harvard Law's Cyberlaw Clinic, who built the video to test out the tool.
In a post, Caraballo warned that such tech could mislead older news consumers in particular.
'What's worrying is how easy it is to repeat. Within ten minutes, I had multiple versions. This makes it harder to detect and easier to spread,' she wrote. 'The lack of a chyron [banner on a news broadcast] makes it trivial to add one after the fact to make it look like any particular news channel.'
In our own experiment, we used a prompt to create fake news videos bearing the logos of ABC and NBC, with voices mimicking those of CNN anchors Jake Tapper, Erin Burnett, John Berman, and Anderson Cooper.
'Now, it's just getting harder and harder to tell fact from fiction,' Caraballo told Al Jazeera. 'As someone who's been researching AI systems for years, even I'm starting to struggle.'
This challenge extends to the public, as well. A study by Penn State University found that 48 percent of consumers were fooled by fake videos circulated via messaging apps or social media.
Contrary to popular belief, younger adults are more susceptible to misinformation than older adults, largely because younger generations rely on social media for news, which lacks the editorial standards and legal oversight of traditional news organisations.
A UNESCO survey from December showed that 62 percent of news influencers do not fact-check information before sharing it.
Google is not alone in developing tools that facilitate the spread of synthetic media. Companies like Deepbrain offer users the ability to create AI-generated avatar videos, though with limitations, as it cannot produce full-scene renders like Veo 3. Deepbrain did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment. Other tools like Synthesia and Dubverse allow video dubbing, primarily for translation.
This growing toolkit offers more opportunities for malicious actors. A recent incident involved a fabricated news segment in which a CBS reporter in Dallas was made to appear to say racist remarks. The software used remains unidentified.
CBS News Texas did not respond to a request for comment.
As synthetic media becomes more prevalent, it poses unique risks that will allow bad actors to push manipulated content that spreads faster than it can be corrected, according to Colman.
'By the time fake content spreads across platforms that don't check these markers [which is most of them], through channels that strip them out, or via bad actors who've learned to falsify them, the damage is done,' Colman said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran moves to suspend cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog
Iran's Guardian Council has ratified a parliament-approved legislation to suspend Tehran's cooperation with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, after the war with Israel and the United States. Iranian news outlets reported on Thursday that the appointed council, which has veto power over bills approved by lawmakers, found the parliament's measure to 'not to be in contradiction to the Islamic principles and the Constitution'. Guardian Council spokesperson Hadi Tahan Nazif told the official state news agency, IRNA, that the government is now required to suspend cooperation with the IAEA for the 'full respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran'. Nazif added that the decision was prompted by the 'attacks … by the Zionist regime and the United States against peaceful nuclear facilities'. The bill will be submitted to President Masoud Pezeshkian for final approval and would allow Iran 'to benefit from all the entitlements specified under … the Non-Proliferation Treaty, especially with regard to uranium enrichment', Nazif said. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf suggested that the legislation is now binding after the Guardian Council's approval. 'Continued cooperation with the agency, which plays a role as a protector of anti-human interests and an agent of the illegitimate Zionist regime through the pretext of war and aggression, is not possible until the security of our nuclear facilities is ensured,' Ghalibaf said in a social media post. However, the IAEA said on Thursday that it had not received an official communication from Iran regarding the suspension. Iranian officials have been decrying the IAEA's failure to condemn Israeli attacks on the country's nuclear facilities. Before the war started, Tehran claimed to have obtained Israeli documents that show that the IAEA was passing off information to Israel about Iran's nuclear programme – allegations that were denied by the agency. Israel is widely believed to have its own nuclear arsenal, but its nuclear programme has not been monitored by the UN watchdog. For years, Iranian nuclear sites have been under strict IAEA inspection, including by constant video feed. But it appears that Iran moved its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium from the facilities before they were bombed by Israel and the US during the recent war, putting them out of the view of UN observers for the first time. US and Israeli officials have argued that the military strikes have set back Iran's nuclear programme for years. But suspending cooperation with the IAEA could escalate the programme, although Tehran insists that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Thursday that Moscow was 'interested in Iran's cooperation with the IAEA continuing'. 'We are interested in everyone respecting the supreme leader of Iran, who has repeatedly stated that Iran does not and will not have plans to create nuclear weapons,' Lavrov said. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also told journalists that Berlin 'urges the Iranian government not to go down this path' and cease cooperation with the board. On June 13, Israel launched a surprise bombing campaign against Iran, striking residential buildings and nuclear sites and military facilities, killing top commanders and scientists as well as hundreds of civilians. Iran responded with barrages of missiles that left widespread destruction in Israel and killed at least 29 people. On Sunday, the US joined Israel and launched unprecedented strikes on Iran's Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites. Following Iran's retaliatory attack on a US military base in Qatar, a ceasefire was reached between the countries. Both Israel and Iran declared victory after the war.


Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What's next for Iran's nuclear programme?
Barely 72 hours after United States President Donald Trump's air strikes against Iran, a controversy erupted over the extent of the damage they had done to the country's uranium enrichment facilities in Fordow and Natanz. The New York Times and CNN leaked a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that the damage may have been 'from moderate to severe', noting it had 'low confidence' in the findings because they were an early assessment. Trump had claimed the sites were 'obliterated'. The difference in opinion mattered because it goes to the heart of whether the US and Israel had eliminated Iran's ability to enrich uranium to levels that would allow it to make nuclear weapons, at least for years. Israel has long claimed – without evidence – that Iran plans to build nuclear bombs. Iran has consistently insisted that its nuclear programme is purely of a civilian nature. And the US has been divided on the question – its intelligence community concluding as recently as March that Tehran was not building a nuclear bomb, but Trump claiming earlier in June that Iran was close to building such a weapon. Yet amid the conflicting claims and assessments on the damage from the US strikes to Iranian nuclear facilities and whether the country wants atomic weapons, one thing is clear: Tehran says it has no intentions of giving up on its nuclear programme. So what is the future of that programme? How much damage has it suffered? Will the US and Israel allow Iran to revive its nuclear programme? And can a 2015 diplomatic deal with Iran – that was working well until Trump walked out of it – be brought back to life? What Iran wants In his first public comments since the US bombing, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that the attack 'did nothing significant' to Iran's nuclear facilities. Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera's Resul Serdar said Khamenei spoke of how 'most of the [nuclear] sites are still in place and that Iran is going to continue its nuclear programme'. Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on Tuesday said that 'preparations for recovery had already been anticipated, and our plan is to prevent any interruption in production or services'. To be sure, even if they haven't been destroyed, Natanz and Fordow – Iran's only known enrichment sites – have suffered significant damage, according to satellite images. Israel has also assassinated several of Iran's top nuclear scientists in its wave of strikes that began on June 13. However, the DIA said in the initial assessment that the Trump administration has tried to dismiss, that the attacks had only set Iran's nuclear programme back by months. It also said that Iran had moved uranium enriched at these facilities away from these sites prior to the strikes. Iranian officials have also made the same claim. The UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had accused Iran of enriching up to 400kg of uranium to 60 percent – not far below the 90 percent enrichment that is needed to make weapons. Asked on Wednesday whether he thought the enriched uranium had been smuggled out from the nuclear facilities before the strikes, Trump said, 'We think everything nuclear is down there, they didn't take it out.' Asked again later, he said, 'We think we hit them so hard and so fast they didn't get to move.' What was the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear facilities? Without on-site inspections, nobody can be sure. Central Intelligence Agency director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday posted a statement saying, 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years'. That's a very different timeline from what the DIA suggested in its early assessment. But it's important to remember that the DIA and CIA also disagreed on whether Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2003. The DIA sided with the UN's view that inspections had proven Hussein didn't have such weapons. The CIA, on the other hand, provided intelligence that backed the position of then-president George W Bush in favour of an invasion – intelligence that was later debunked. In that instance, the CIA proved politically more malleable than the DIA. Amid the current debate over whether Iranian nuclear sites were destroyed, Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has also weighed in favour of the president's view. 'Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do,' she posted on Twitter/X. But Gabbard has already demonstrably changed her public statements to suit Trump. In March, she testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme that he suspended in 2003'. On June 20, Trump was asked for his reaction to that assessment. 'She's wrong,' he said. Gabbard later that day posted that her testimony had been misquoted by 'the dishonest media' and that 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalise the assembly'. Gabbard's clarification did not contradict her earlier view, that Iran was not actively trying to build a weapon. Asked in an interview with a French radio network whether Iran's nuclear programme had been destroyed, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi replied, 'I think 'destroyed' is too much. But it suffered enormous damage.' On Wednesday, Israel's Atomic Energy Commission concurred with the CIA, saying Iran's nuclear facilities had been rendered 'totally inoperable' and had 'set back Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come'. Also on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the destruction of Iran's surface facilities at Isfahan was proof enough of Iran's inability to make a bomb. 'The conversion facility, which you can't do a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility, we can't even find where it is, where it used to be on the map,' he told reporters. Can a 2015 diplomatic deal be resuscitated? The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated with Iran by France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the US, China, Russia and the European Union in 2015, was the only agreement ever reached governing Iran's nuclear programme. The JCPOA allowed Iran to enrich its own uranium, but limited it to the 3.7 percent enrichment levels required for a nuclear reactor to generate electricity. At Israel's behest, Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018 and Iran walked away from it a year later – but before that, it was working. Even though Trump has said he will never return to the JCPOA, which was negotiated by his predecessor, Barack Obama, he could return to an agreement of his own making that strongly resembles it. The crucial question is, whether Israel will this time back it, and whether Iran will be allowed to have even a peaceful nuclear programme, which it is legally entitled to. On Wednesday, Trump didn't sound as though he was moving in this direction. 'We may sign an agreement. I don't know. I don't think it's that necessary,' he told reporters at The Hague. Any JCPOA-like agreement would also require Iran to allow IAEA inspectors to get back to ensuring that Tehran meets its nuclear safeguard commitments. 'IAEA inspectors have remained in Iran throughout the conflict and are ready to start working as soon as possible, going back to the country's nuclear sites and verifying the inventories of nuclear material,' the IAEA said on Tuesday. But Iran's powerful Guardian Council on Thursday approved a parliamentary bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, suggesting that Tehran is at the moment not in the mood to entertain any UN oversight of its nuclear facilities. What happens if Iran returns to enriching uranium? 'If Iran wants a civil nuclear programme, they can have one, just like many other countries in the world have one, and [the way for] that is, they import enriched material,' Rubio told journalist Bari Weiss on the Podcast, Honestly, in April. 'But if they insist on enriching [themselves], then they will be the only country in the world that doesn't have a weapons programme, quote unquote, but is enriching. And so I think that's problematic,' he said. Ali Ansari, an Iran historian at St. Andrews University in the UK, told Al Jazeera that 'there have already been calls to cease uranium enrichment from activists within the country'. But the defiant statements from Iranian officials since the US strikes – including from Khamenei on Thursday – suggest that Tehran is not ready to give up on enrichment. Trump has, in recent days, suggested that he wants Iran to give up its nuclear programme altogether. On Tuesday, Trump posted on TruthSocial, 'IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!' He doubled down on that view on Wednesday. 'Iran has a huge advantage. They have great oil, and they can do things. I don't see them getting back involved in the nuclear business any more, I think they've had it,' he told reporters at the end of the NATO summit in The Hague. And then he suggested the US would again strike Iran's facilities, even if it weren't building a bomb. 'If [Iran] does [get involved], we're always there, we'll have to do something about it.' If he didn't, 'someone else' would hit Iran's nuclear facilities, he suggested. That 'someone' would be Israel – which has long tried to kill any diplomatic effort over Iran's nuclear programme. At the NATO summit, Trump was asked whether Israel and Iran might start a war again soon. 'I guess some day it can. It could maybe start soon,' he said.


Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Israel's media amplifies war rhetoric, ignores Gaza's suffering
Last Thursday, just days after he had ordered strikes upon Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood outside Beersheba's Soroka Hospital and spoke of his outrage that the building had been hit in an Iranian counterstrike. 'They're targeting civilians because they're a criminal regime. They're the arch-terrorists of the world,' he said of the Iranian government. Similar accusations were levelled by other Israeli leaders, including the president, Isaac Herzog, and opposition leader Yair Lapid, during the conflict with Iran, which ended with a ceasefire brokered by United States President Donald Trump on Monday. However, what was missing from these leaders was an acknowledgement that Israel itself has attacked almost every hospital in Gaza, where more than 56,000 people have been killed, or that the Strip's healthcare system has been pushed to near total collapse. It was an omission noticeable in much of the Israeli press reporting on the Beersheba hospital attack, with few mentions of the parallels between it and Israel's own attacks on hospitals in Gaza. Instead, much of the Israeli media has supported these attacks, either seeking to downplay them, or justifying them by regularly claiming that Hamas command centres lie under the hospitals, an accusation Israel has never been able to prove. Weaponising suffering According to analysts who spoke to Al Jazeera, a media ecosystem exists in Israel that, with a few exceptions, both amplifies its leaders' calls for war while simultaneously reinforcing their claims of victimhood, all while shielding the Israeli public from seeing the suffering Israeli forces are inflicting on Gaza and the occupied West Bank. One Israeli journalist, Haaretz's media correspondent Ido David Cohen, wrote this month that 'reporters and editors at Israel's major news outlets have admitted more than once, especially in private conversations, that their employers haven't allowed them to present the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the suffering of the population there'. 'The Israeli media … sees its job as not to educate, it's to shape and mould a public that is ready to support war and aggression,' journalist Orly Noy told Al Jazeera from West Jerusalem. 'It genuinely sees itself as having a special role in this.' 'I've seen [interviews with] people who lived near areas where Iranian missiles had hit,' Noy added. 'They were given a lot of space to talk and explain the impact, but as soon as they started to criticise the war, they were shut down, quite rudely.' Last September, a complaint brought by three Israeli civil society organisations against Channel 14, one of Israel's most watched television networks, cited 265 quotes from hosts they claimed encouraged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide. Among them, concerning Gaza, were the phrases 'it really needs to be total annihilation' and 'there are no innocents.' A few months earlier, in April, the channel was again criticised within the Israeli media, this time for a live counter labelled 'the terrorists we eliminated', which made no distinction between civilians and fighters killed, the media monitoring magazine 7th Eye pointed out. Analysts and observers described how Israel's media and politicians have weaponised the horrors of the past suffering of the Jewish people and have moulded it into a narrative of victimhood that can be aimed at any geopolitical opponent that circumstances allow – with Iran looming large among them. 'It isn't just this war,' Noy, an editor with the Hebrew-language Local Call website, said. 'The Israeli media is in the business of justifying every war, of telling people that this war is essential for their very existence. It's an ecosystem. Whatever the authority is, it is absolutely right. There is no margin for doubt, with no room for criticism from the inside. To see it, you have to be on the outside.' 'The world has allowed Israel to act as some kind of crazy bully to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants,' Noy added. 'They can send their troops into Syria and Lebanon, never mind Gaza, with impunity. Israel is fine. Israel is bulletproof. And why wouldn't they think that? The world allows it, then people are shocked when Iran strikes back.' The Israeli media largely serves as a tool to manufacture consent for Israel's actions against the Palestinians and in neighbouring countries, while shielding the Israeli public from the suffering its victims endure. Exceptions do exist. Israeli titles such as Noy's Local Call and +972 Magazine often feature coverage highly critical of Israel's war on Gaza, and have conducted in-depth investigations into Israel's actions, uncovering scandals that are only reported on months later by the international media. Joint reporting from Local Call and +972 Magazine has revealed that the Israeli military was using an AI system to generate bombing target lists based on predicted civilian casualties. Another report found that the Israeli military had falsely declared entire Gaza neighbourhoods as evacuated, which then led to the bombing of civilian homes in areas that were still inhabited. A more famous example is the liberal daily Haaretz, which regularly criticises Israel's actions in Gaza. Haaretz has faced a government boycott over its coverage of the war. A partially sighted media 'It's not new,' Dina Matar, professor of political communication and Arab media at SOAS University of London, said. 'Israeli media has long been pushing the idea that they [Israel] are the victims while calling for actions that will allow them to present greater victimhood [such as attacking Iran]. They often use emotive language to describe a strike on an Israeli hospital that they'll never use to describe an Israeli strike on a hospital in Gaza.' Take Israeli media coverage of the siege of northern Gaza's last remaining functioning healthcare facility, the Kamal Adwan Hospital, in December. While descriptions of the attacks on the hospital from United Nations special rapporteurs spoke of their 'horror' at the strikes, those in the Israeli press, in outlets such as Ynet or The Times of Israel, instead focused almost exclusively upon the Israeli military's claims of the numbers of 'terrorists' seized. Among those seized from the hospital were medical staff, including the director of Kamal Adwan, Dr Hussam Abu Safia, who has since been tortured in an Israeli military prison, his lawyer previously told Al Jazeera. In contrast, Israeli coverage of the Soroka Hospital attack in Beersheba almost universally framed the hit as a 'direct strike' and foregrounded the experience of the evacuated patients and healthcare workers. In this environment, Matar said, Netanyahu's representation of Israel as home to a 'subjugated people' reinforced a view that Israelis have long been encouraged to hold of themselves, even amid the decades-long occupation of Palestinian land. 'No one questions what Netanyahu is saying because the implications of his speech make sense as part of this larger historical narrative; one that doesn't allow for any other [narrative], such as the Nakba or the suffering in Gaza,' the academic said.