India and Pakistan have retreated from the brink of possible war but an information conflict still rages over their tit-for-tat air strikes and an aerial dogfight between the nuclear-armed arch rivals.
A suicide bombing on February 14 killed 40 troops and was the deadliest attack in Kashmir on Indian forces in a 30-year insurgency by militants wanting independence or to be part of Pakistan.
Delhi has long accused Islamabad of supporting the insurgents and the attack was claimed by Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).
India and Washington say Islamabad uses groups like JeM as proxies to attack India, which despite repeated "crackdowns" manage to resume their activities.
Here is a brief summary of what both countries, which have fought three wars since 1947, have said in recent days about their most serious standoff in years.
- '250 dead' -
India launched air strikes on February 26 on what it called a JeM training camp at Balakot inside Pakistan, 12 days after the suicide bombing.
Vijay Keshav Gokhale, Indian foreign secretary, hours after its pre-dawn air raid said the target of the "pre-emptive strike" was "jihadis" in the "biggest training camp of JeM".
Gokhale said "a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of jihadis who were being trained for fidayeen (suicide) action were eliminated".
While the Indian government has given no official statement about the numbers of dead, Indian local media ran several source-based reports claiming as many as 350 killed.
Leading politicians linked to prime minister Narendra Modi's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) including notably BJP president Amit Shah put the death toll at 250.
Some of those asking for proof -- such as opposition politicians accusing Modi of using the crisis to boost his standing ahead of looming elections -- have gotten short shrift.
In the next raids, "opposition parties raising these questions can be tied under the jets... so that they can look at the targets," thundered junior foreign minister V.K Singh.
- Just trees? -
Pakistani officials have said that Indian warplanes did breach its airspace, dropping what military spokesman Major General Asif Ghafoor described as "payloads" near Balakot.
But Islamabad has denied there was any damage or casualties.
"Once again (the) Indian government has resorted to a self serving, reckless and fictitious claim," foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said.
Local residents reported hearing explosions in the night, but said only one person was injured and that no infrastructure was destroyed.
The army escorted reporters to the area, but independent reporting by multiple local and international outlets who visited the site also found no evidence of a major terrorist training camp -- or of any infrastructure damage at all.
An AFP reporter visited what his Pakistani military escort and locals said was the site and saw a crater, two trees snapped in half and three mud houses, one of which had a collapsed wall.
AFP has not independently verified if any JeM training camps are nearby. Some media have reported that a madrassa run by JeM was in the vicinity, but undamaged.
The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab said that open-source satellite imagery indicated "only impacts in the wooded area, with no damage being visible to the surrounding structures."
Pakistan has even -- perhaps tongue-in-cheek -- floated the possibility of lodging a complaint against India for "eco-terrorism" for killing of "dozens" of trees.
- Dogfight -
A further bone of contention is the air raid by Pakistani aircraft into Indian airspace and the subsequent aerial dogfight in the skies over Kashmir on February 27.
Pakistan said it shot down two Indian planes, one falling on the Pakistani side of the Line of Control frontier and the other on the Indian side.
Initially Pakistan said it had captured two Indian pilots but the military later clarified it had just one pilot in custody.
Attacking Pakistani "disinformation", India's Air Vice Marshal R.G.K Kapoor said India had lost just one plane, whose pilot was captured -- and later released -- by Pakistan.
Kapoor also said an Indian Mig21 had shot down one Pakistani F16, crashing on the Pakistani side, but Islamabad denied this.
"The fact... is that Indian army units had reported sighting two parachutes falling (in Pakistani Kashmir), which were of two F-16 pilots (from) the aircraft that was shot down by (a) Mig21," Kapoor said.
- 'Open space' -
Pakistan said its planes had crossed the Line of Control (LoC), their de-facto border, in broad daylight and locked on to six targets to show they could, but then hit "open space" instead.
But India rejected this too, saying that Pakistan had intended to attack Indian military installations but had been "foiled" by its aircraft.
"Although PAF bombs have fallen in the Indian army formation compounds, they were unable to cause any damage to our military installations," Kapoor said.
AI can make thousands of podcast episodes every week with very few people.
Making an AI podcast episode costs almost nothing and can make money fast.
Small podcasters cannot get noticed. It is hard for them to earn.
Advertisements go to AI shows. Human shows get ignored.
Listeners do not mind AI. Some like it.
A company can now publish thousands of podcasts a week with almost no people. That fact alone should wake up anyone who makes money from talking into a mic.
The company now turns out roughly 3,000 episodes a week with a team of eight. Each episode costs about £0.75 (₹88.64) to make. With as few as 20 listens, an episode can cover its cost. That single line explains why the rest of this story is happening.
When AI takes over podcasts human creators are struggling to keep up iStock
The math that changes the game
Podcasting used to be slow and hands-on. Hosts booked guests, edited interviews, and hunted sponsors. Now, the fixed costs, including writing, voice, and editing, can be automated. Once that system is running, adding another episode barely costs anything; it is just another file pushed through the same machine.
To see how that changes the landscape, look at the scale we are talking about. By September 2025, there were already well over 4.52 million podcasts worldwide. In just three months, close to half a million new shows joined the pile. It has become a crowded marketplace worth roughly £32 billion (₹3.74 trillion), most of it fuelled by advertising money.
That combination of a huge market plus near-zero marginal costs creates a simple incentive: flood the directories with niche shows. Even tiny audiences become profitable.
What mass production looks like
These AI shows are not replacements for every human program. They are different products. Producers use generative models to write scripts, synthesise voice tracks, add music, and publish automatically. Topics are hyper-niche: pollen counts in a mid-sized city, daily stock micro-summaries, or a five-minute briefing on a single plant species. The episodes are short, frequent, and tailored to narrow advertiser categories.
That model works because advertisers can target tiny audiences. If an antihistamine maker can reach fifty people looking up pollen data in one town, that can still be worth paying for. Multiply that by thousands of micro-topics, and the revenue math stacks up.
How mass-produced AI podcasts are drowning out real human voicesiStock
Where human creators lose
Podcasting has always been fragile for independent creators. Most shows never break even. Discoverability is hard. Promotion costs money. Now, add AI fleets pushing volume, and the problem worsens.
Platforms surface content through algorithms. If those algorithms reward frequency, freshness, or sheer inventory, AI producers gain an advantage. Human shows that take weeks to produce with high-quality narrative, interviews, or even investigative pieces get buried.
Advertisers chasing cheap reach will be tempted by mass AI networks. That will push down the effective CPMs (cost per thousand listens) for many categories. Small hosts who relied on a few branded reads or listener donations will see the pool shrink.
What listeners get and what they lose
Not every listener cares if a host is synthetic. Some care only about the utility: a quick sports update, a commute briefing, or a how-to snippet. For those use cases, AI can be fine, or even better, because it is faster, cheaper, and always on.
But the thing is, a lot of podcast value comes from human quirks. The long-form interview, the offbeat joke, the voice that makes you feel known—those are hard to fake. Studies and industry voices already show 52% of consumers feel less engaged with content. The result is a split audience: one side tolerates or prefers automated, functional audio; the other side pays to keep human voices alive.
When cheap AI shows flood the market small creators lose their edgeiStock
Legal and ethical damage control
Mass AI podcasting raises immediate legal and ethical questions.
Copyright — Models trained on protected audio and text can reproduce or riff on copyrighted works.
Impersonation — Synthetic voices can mirror public figures, which risks deception.
Misinformation — Automated scripts without fact-checking can spread errors at scale.
Transparency — Few platforms force disclosure that an episode is AI-generated.
If regulators force tighter rules, the tiny profit margin on each episode could disappear. That would make the mass-production model unprofitable overnight. Alternatively, platforms could impose labelling and remove low-quality feeds. Either outcome would reshape the calculus.
How the industry can respond through practical moves
The ecosystem will not collapse overnight.
Label AI episodes clearly.
Use discovery algorithms that reward engagement, not volume.
Create paywalls, memberships, or time-listened metrics.
Use AI tools to help humans, not replace them.
Industry standards on IP and voice consent are needed to reduce legal exposure. Platforms and advertisers hold most of the cards here. They can choose to favour volume or to protect quality. Their choice will decide many creators’ fates.
Three short scenarios, then the point
Flooded and cheap — Platforms favour volume. Ads chase cheap reach. Many independent shows vanish, and audio becomes a sea of similar, useful, but forgettable feeds.
Regulated and curated — Disclosure rules and smarter discovery reward listener engagement. Human shows survive, and AI fills utility roles.
Hybrid balance — Creators use AI tools to speed up workflows while keeping control over voice and facts. New business models emerge that pay for depth.
All three are plausible. The industry will move towards the one that matches where platforms and advertisers put their money.
Can human podcasters survive the flood of robot-made showsiStock
New rules, old craft
Machines can mass-produce audio faster and cheaper than people. That does not make them better storytellers. It makes them efficient at delivering information. If you are a creator, your defence is simple: make content machines cannot copy easily. Tell stories that require curiosity, risk, restraint, and relationships. Build listeners who will pay for that difference.
If you are a platform or advertiser, your choice is also simple: do you reward noise or signal? Reward signal, and you keep what made podcasting special. Reward noise, and you get scale and a thinner, cheaper industry in return. Either way, the next few years will decide whether podcasting stays a human medium with tools or becomes a tool-driven medium with a few human highlights. The soundscape is changing. If human creators want to survive, they need to focus on the one thing machines do not buy: trust.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.