us-technology

PayPal announced Wednesday it has partnered with global wallet companies to create a platform called PayPal World that is designed to make cross-border commerce easier. The platform will allow users to pay others using their local wallets and payment systems. The company said the launch partners include India’s NPCI International Payments Limited, which operates mobile payments framework UPI (Unified Payment Interface), China’s Tenpay Global (Tencent’s Payment arm), which operates Weixin (WeChat) payment ecosystem in the country, along with PayPal and Venmo. The company has also signed an memorandum of understanding with Latin America’s Mercado Pago, a fintech company that enables card and mobile payments, while the final details of the deals are being ironed out. With these partnerships, PayPal wants to cover more than two billion users across the world. “PayPal World is a first-of-its-kind payments ecosystem that will bring together many of the world’s largest payment systems and digital wallets on a single platform,” Alex Chriss, President and CEO of PayPal said in a statement. “The challenge of moving money across borders is incredibly complex, and yet this platform will make it so simple for nearly two billion consumers and businesses. We believe the changes we are announcing today have the potential to be a real game changer over time.” The fintech company said that through PayPal World, PayPal and Venmo users will be able to send money to anyone in the world, even if they aren’t a PayPal user. For instance, when they are traveling in China, they can use PayPal on the Wexin payment network to pay to local businesses. On the flip side, if a customer from India is buying from a site in the U.S., they can use PayPal to check out and pay through their UPI wallet. Techcrunch event San Francisco | October 27-29, 2025 Total user base and transaction volume of these wallet systems are massive. For instance, Mercado Pago’s total payment volume was $58.3 billion in the first quarter of 2025. In India, UPI transactions hit more than $238 billion just for the month of June, according to NPCI data. China’s Tenpay is also working on creating a better remittance framework along with enabling cross-border peer-to-peer payments. “We are glad that Tenpay Global, Tencent’s cross-border payment platform, will support users of PayPal and Venmo in making payments by scanning Weixin Pay1 QR codes, further expanding access for global digital wallets to transact in the mainland of China. In addition to payments, Tenpay Global will deepen its collaboration with PayPal World in remittances,” Wenhui Yang, CEO of Tenpay Global, said. PayPal World is set to kick off the platform this fall with its launch partners. The company said that in 2026, Venmo users will be able to pay for shopping both online and offline for merchants that support PayPal’s payments. Ivan covers global consumer tech developments at TechCrunch. He is based out of India and has previously worked at publications including Huffington Post and The Next Web. You can reach out to him at im[at]ivanmehta[dot]com View Bio Read More

Apple notified more than a dozen Iranians in recent months that their iPhones had been targeted with government spyware, according to security researchers. Miaan Group, a digital rights organization that focuses on Iran, and Hamid Kashfi, an Iranian cybersecurity researcher who lives in Sweden, said they spoke with several Iranians who received the notifications in the last year.  Bloomberg first wrote about these spyware notifications. Miaan Group published a report on Tuesday on the state of cybersecurity of civil society in Iran, which mentioned that the organization’s researchers have identified three cases of government spyware attacks against Iranians, two in Iran and one in Europe, who were alerted in April of this year. “Two people in Iran come from a family with a long history of political activism against the Islamic Republic. Many members of their family have been executed, and they have no history of traveling abroad,” Amir Rashidi, Miaan Group’s director of digital rights and security, told TechCrunch. “I believe there have been three waves of attacks, and we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.” Rashidi said that Iran is likely the government behind the attacks, although there needs to be more investigations into these attacks to reach a more conclusive determination. “I see no reason for members of civil society to be targeted by anyone other than Iran,” he said. Kashfi, who founded the security firm DarkCell, said in an email that he helped two victims go through preliminary forensics steps, but he wasn’t able to confirm which spyware maker was behind the attacks. And, he added, some of the victims he worked with preferred not to continue the investigation. Contact Us Have you received a threat notification from Apple? We’d love to hear from you. From a non-work device and network, you can contact Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, or via Telegram and Keybase @lorenzofb, or email. ”Pretty much all victims spooked out and ghosted us as soon as we explained the seriousness of the case to them. I presume partly because of their place of work and sensitivity of the matters related to that,” said Kashfi, who added that one of the victims received the notification in 2024. It’s unclear which spyware maker is behind these attacks.  Over the last few years, Apple has sent several rounds of notifications to people whom the company believes have been targeted with government spyware, such as NSO Group’s Pegasus, or Paragon’s Graphite. This kind of malware is also known as “mercenary” or “commercial” spyware. The notifications have helped security researchers who focus on spyware to document abuses in several countries such as India, El Salvador, and Thailand.  On Apple’s support page for what the company calls “threat notifications,” last updated in April, the tech giant said that since 2021 it has notified users in “in over 150 countries,” which shows how widespread the use of government spyware is. Apple does not disclose the names of the countries, nor the total number of people it has notified.  To help victims, since last year, Apple has recommended those who received these threat notifications to reach out to digital rights group AccessNow, which runs an around-the-clock helpline staffed with researchers who can investigate spyware attacks. AccessNow has documented cases of spyware abuse all over the world.  Apple did not respond to a request for comment on the notifications sent to Iranians.  Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai is a Senior Writer at TechCrunch, where he covers hacking, cybersecurity, surveillance, and privacy. You can contact Lorenzo securely on Signal at +1 917 257 1382, on Keybase/Telegram @lorenzofb, or via email at lorenzo@techcrunch.com. View Bio Read More

Amazon has acquired the AI wearables startup Bee, according to a LinkedIn post by Bee co-founder Maria de Lourdes Zollo. Amazon confirmed the acquisition to TechCrunch but noted that the deal has not yet closed. Bee, which raised $7 million last year, makes both a stand-alone Fitbit-like bracelet (which retails for $49.99, plus a $19-per-month subscription) and an Apple Watch app. The product records everything it hears — unless the user manually mutes it — with the goal of listening to conversations to create reminders and to-do lists for the user. Zollo told TechCrunch last year that the company hopes to create a “cloud phone,” or a mirror of your phone that gives the personal Bee device access to the user’s accounts and notifications, making it possible to get reminders about events or send messages. “We believe everyone should have access to a personal, ambient intelligence that feels less like a tool and more like a trusted companion. One that helps you reflect, remember, and move through the world more freely,” Bee claims on its website. Other companies like Rabbit and Humane AI have tried to make AI-enabled wearables like this but have not found much success thus far. But at a $50 price point, Bee’s devices are more cost-accessible to a curious consumer who doesn’t want to make a big financial commitment. (The ill-fated Humane AI Pin was $499.) An Amazon spokesperson told TechCrunch that Bee employees received offers to join Amazon. This acquisition signals Amazon’s interest in developing wearable AI devices, a different avenue from its voice-controlled home assistant products like its line of Echo speakers. ChatGPT maker OpenAI is working on its own AI hardware, while Meta is integrating its AI into its smart glasses. Apple is rumored to be working on AI-powered smart glasses as well. These products come with a number of security and privacy risks, given that they record everything around them; different companies’ policies will vary in terms of how voice recordings are processed, stored, and used for AI training. In its current privacy policies, Bee says that users can delete their data at any time and that audio recordings are not saved, stored, or used for AI training. The app does store data that the AI learns about the user, however, which is how it can function as an assistant. Bee previously indicated that it planned to only record the voices of people who have verbally consented. Bee also says it’s working on a feature to allow users to define boundaries — both based on topic and location — that will automatically pause the device’s learning. The company noted that it plans to build on-device AI processing, which generally poses less of a privacy risk than processing data in the cloud. It’s not clear if these policies will change as Bee is integrated into Amazon, however — and Amazon has a mixed record on the handling of user data from its customers’ devices. In the past, Amazon shared footage with law enforcement from people’s personal Ring security cameras, with neither the owner’s consent, nor a warrant. Ring also settled claims in 2023 brought by the Federal Trade Commission that employees and contractors had broad and unrestricted access to customers’ videos. Amanda Silberling is a senior writer at TechCrunch covering the intersection of technology and culture. She has also written for publications like Polygon, MTV, the Kenyon Review, NPR, and Business Insider. She is the co-host of Wow If True, a podcast about internet culture, with science fiction author Isabel J. Kim. Prior to joining TechCrunch, she worked as a grassroots organizer, museum educator, and film festival coordinator. She holds a B.A. in English from the University of Pennsylvania and served as a Princeton in Asia Fellow in Laos. Send tips through Signal, an encrypted messaging app, to @amanda.100. For anything else, email amanda@techcrunch.com. View Bio Read More

OpenAI was the company that signed a $30 billion per year deal with Oracle for data center services, disclosed last month, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. Now, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has confirmed the details of the contract (but not the dollar amount) in an X post on Tuesday and in a company blog post. To recap, on June 30, Oracle disclosed in an SEC filing that it had signed a cloud deal that would generate $30 billion a year in revenue. However, the company didn’t say who it was with or for what services. The news caused Oracle’s stock to hit an all-time high, making its founder and CTO, Larry Ellison, the second richest person in the world, according to Bloomberg. Speculation on the identity of the customer ensued as people wondered what company could possibly need a fresh $30 billion a year in data center services. For comparison, Oracle collectively sold $24.5 billion worth of cloud services in its fiscal 2025 to all customers combined, it reported in June. OpenAI has now explained that this Oracle deal is for 4.5 gigawatts of capacity as part of Stargate, the $500 billion data-center-building project OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank announced in January. (Apparently, the $30 billion deal does not involve SoftBank.) The WSJ reports 4.5 gigawatts is the equivalent of two Hoover Dams, enough power for about four million homes. This isn’t a straightforward win for Oracle. OpenAI and Oracle still have to build this monster data center, which will be a costly endeavor, both in cash and in energy. They are doing so at what OpenAI called the Stargate I site in Abilene, Texas.  Meanwhile, Oracle spent $21.2 billion on capital expenditures in its last fiscal year, CEO Safra Catz reported in June, and it expects to spend another $25 billion this year, she said. So, nearly $50 billion, largely spent on data centers (and that doesn’t include land purchases, she said) in two years. Although, to be clear, that money also supports Oracle’s existing customers, in addition to OpenAI’s demands. Techcrunch event San Francisco | October 27-29, 2025 One final interesting part to note about all of this: Last month, Altman said that OpenAI recently hit $10 billion in annual recurring revenue, up from around $5.5 billion last year. This single commitment to Oracle is already triple per year what it is currently bringing in and doesn’t include all of the company’s other expenses, including its current data center commitments. Read More

(Image credit: Shutterstock) Running an old OS like Windows 10 could soon pose cybersecurity issues Upgrading could reveal software compatibility issues, report notes The clock is now ticking to avoid a rushed Windows 11 migration New research has uncovered some of the finer details around why many businesses are still being cautious with their approach to Windows 11 migration, with security threats and financial impacts proving to be major hurdles. The report from Panasonic found nearly two-thirds (62%) of devices need replacing or upgrading for Windows 11 compatibility, highlighting the scale of the problem – a figure that rises to 76% among larger organizations with 5,000+ employees. However, despite migration-related concerns, the study claims many organizations still recognize the benefits of upgrading from Windows 10 and older operating systems. Businesses still have some concerns about upgrading Windows Panasonic found 94% fear increased ransomware and malware risks if they don’t upgrade, with 93% also concerned about data breaches. But two in three noted overall higher costs associated with migrating to Windows 11, with 55% stating that it could add to cybersecurity expenses. Nearly half also noted software compatibility issues (47%) and productivity loss during downtime (45%), and for many (25%), hardware upgrades come with software upgrades, compounding the financial impact of OS upgrades. However, with Microsoft estimating that ESU could cost around £320,000 over three years for 1,000 devices, the need to upgrade is clear. Around a third each acknowledge that upgrading will give them better performance and processing power (36%), a more future proof ecosystem (36%) and access to AI features like Microsoft Copilot (34%). Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed! Panasonic TOUGHBOOK Europe Head of Go-to-Market Chris Turner commented: “The window is closing for organisations to make a well-planned, measured and cost-effective transition to Windows 11 and start unlocking its benefits.” “Organisations that are still to undertake Windows 11 migration need support to ensure their deployment is not rushed and risky,” Turner added. You might also like Windows 10 users who don’t want to upgrade to Windows 11 get new lifeline from Microsoft We’ve listed the best business laptops and best mobile workstations for the best portable upgrades Check out our roundup of the best productivity software With several years’ experience freelancing in tech and automotive circles, Craig’s specific interests lie in technology that is designed to better our lives, including AI and ML, productivity aids, and smart fitness. He is also passionate about cars and the decarbonisation of personal transportation. As an avid bargain-hunter, you can be sure that any deal Craig finds is top value! Read More

It’s hard to blame them. Top up or down, the Vanquish’s aesthetic is one of eagerness and aggression, largely due to the F1-derived aero elements to cool the massive power unit as well as to balance out air from front to back. The rest is all Aston Martin-quality craftsmanship, shaping the Vanquish into a taut, sleek form wrapped in formal attire. Yes, you could just have an electric motor make this much torque and power almost silently. Credit: Aston Martin Bond. Aluminum Bond. The secret underlying the Vanquish’s capabilities is its bonded aluminum body, which is perfectly suited for a grand tourer like this. Bonding panels together rather than welding them makes controlling the NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) levels much easier as the adhesives absorb vibrations, while the stiffness provides much more control in terms of lateral movement. This also means the suspension has less to compensate for, which means it can be stiffer without adding teeth-rattling jitter. Indeed, on the move, the Vanquish Volante is velvety-smooth on the highway, and with the top down, conversations don’t need to be shouted. Raise the soft top and the well-sealed cover is indistinguishable from the coupe as far as your ears are concerned. The even-keeled nature is also due in part to the balance Aston Martin maintains between the throttle input and the electronic rear differential. At low speeds, the Vanquish is quite agile, but a progressive power band keeps it from being nervous or jerky when laying down the power, with the wheels effectively locked in place at high speeds for added stability. If a Vantage is for track work, a Vanquish is for cruising. Credit: Aston Martin We’re talking autobahn speeds, here, by the way. What we’d usually muster on the highway is a cakewalk for this immense luxury chariot. It goes too fast too quickly, for better or for worse, with 80 mph (129 km/h) feeling like half of that. Different drive modes make a palpable difference in behavior, with GT mode supporting smooth, long stretches while Sport and Sport + offer more engaging, throaty behavior for twisty backroads. Here, the car continues to be well-mannered, though the occasional dab for power triggers an overeager automatic into dropping a gear or two, sending the V12 into a fury. Read More

Possible legal paths to revive a shuttered video series on TikTok and Instagram. A popular account on TikTok and Instagram stopped posting suddenly at the end of last year, hit by a lawsuit after garnering millions of views on funny videos using adorable Calico Critter dolls made for preschoolers to act out dark, cringe-y adult storylines. While millions of followers mourn the so-called “Sylvanian Drama” account’s demise, experts told Ars that the creator may have a decent chance at beating the lawsuit. The “Sylvanian Drama” account derived its name from “Sylvanian Families,” a brand name used by Epoch Company Ltd., the maker of Calico Critters, for its iconic fuzzy animal dolls in some markets outside the US. Despite these videos referencing murder, drugs, and hookups, seemingly the toy company had no problem, until the account, managed by Ireland-based Thea Von Engelbrechten, started accepting big brand partnerships and making sponsored content featuring the dolls. Since Epoch, too, strikes partnerships with brands and influencers to promote its own videos marketing the dolls, the company claimed “Sylvanian Drama” risked creating too much confusion online. They also worried viewers would think Epoch had signed off on the videos, since the sponsored content was marked “paid partnership” without specifying precisely which brands featured had paid for the spots. They further accused Von Engelbrechten of building her advertising business around their brand without any attempt to properly license the dolls, while allegedly usurping licensing opportunities from Epoch. So far, Von Engelbrechten has delayed responding in the lawsuit. As the account remained inactive over the past few months, fans speculated whether it could survive the lawsuit, which raised copyright and trademark infringement claims to get all the videos removed. In their complaint, the toy company requested not only an injunction preventing Von Engelbrechten from creating more “Sylvanian Drama” videos, but also sought all of her profits from her online accounts, in addition to further damages. Von Engelbrechten declined Ars’ request to provide an update on her defense in the case, but her response is due in early August. That filing will make clear what arguments she may make to overcome Epoch’s suit, but legal experts told Ars that the case isn’t necessarily a slam dunk for the toy company. So all that “Sylvanian Drama” isn’t over just yet. Epoch’s lawyers did not respond to Ars’ request to comment. “Sylvanian Drama” needs the court to get the joke Epoch raised copyright infringement charges that could hit Von Engelbrechten with fines totaling $150,000 per violation. For Von Engelbrechten to defeat the copyright infringement claim, she’ll need to convince the court that her videos are parodies. A law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, Eric Goldman, told Ars that her videos may qualify since “even if they don’t expressly reference Epoch’s offerings by name, the videos intentionally communicate a jarring juxtaposition of adorable critters who are important parts of pop culture living through the darker sides of humanity.” Basically, Von Engelbrechten will need the court to understand the humor in her videos to win on that claim, Rebecca Tushnet, a First Amendment law professor at Harvard Law School, told Ars. “Courts have varied in their treatment of parodies; the complaint’s definition of parody is not controlling but humor is one of the hardest things to predict—if the court gets the joke, it will be more likely to say that the juxtaposition between the storylines and the innocent appearance of the dolls is parodic,” Tushnet said. But if the court does get the joke, Goldman suggested that even the sponsored content—which hilariously incorporates product placements from various big brands like Marc Jacobs, Taco Bell, Hilton, and Sephora into storylines—could possibly be characterized as parody. However, “the fact that the social media posts were labeled #ad will make it extremely difficult for the artist to contest the videos’ status as ads,” Goldman said. Ultimately, Goldman said that Epoch’s lawsuit “raises a host of complex legal issues” and is “not an easy case on either side.” And one of the most significant issues that Epoch may face in the courtroom apparently could end up gutting all of its trademark infringement claims that supposedly entitle the toy company to all of Von Engelbrechten profits, Alexandra Jane Roberts, a Northeastern University professor of law and media with special expertise in trademark law, told Ars. Calico Critters may stumble on trademark hurdle The toy company has raised several trademark infringement claims, all of which depend on Epoch proving that Von Engelbrechten “knowingly and willfully” used its trademarks without permission. However, Roberts pointed out to Ars that Epoch has no trademarks for its iconic dolls, relying only on common law to assert sole rights to the “look and design of the critters.” It’s likely impossible for Epoch to trademark the dolls, since trademarks are not intended to block competition, and there are only so many ways to design cute dolls that resemble cats or bunnies, Roberts suggested. A court may decide “there’s only so many ways to make a small fuzzy bunny that doesn’t look like this,” potentially narrowing the rights Epoch has under trade dress, a term that Epoch doesn’t use once in its complaint. Roberts told Ars that Epoch’s trademark claims are “not so far off the mark,” and Von Engelbrechten’s defense was certainly not strengthened by her decision to monetize the content. Prior cases, like the indie band OK Go sending a cease-and-desist to Post cereal over a breakfast product called “OK Go” due to fears of false endorsement, make it clear that courts have agreed in the past that online collaborations have muddied the waters regarding who is the actual source of content for viewers. “The question becomes whether people are going to see these videos, even though they’re snarky, and even though they’re silly and think, ‘Oh, Calico Critters must have signed off on this,’” Roberts said. “So the argument about consumer confusion, I think, is a plausible argument.” However, if Epoch fails to convince the court that its trademarks

In May 2020, Sacramento, California, resident Alfonso Nguyen was alarmed to find two Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputies at his door, accusing him of illegally growing cannabis and demanding entry into his home. When Nguyen refused the search and denied the allegation, one deputy allegedly called him a liar and threatened to arrest him. That same year, deputies from the same department, with their guns drawn and bullhorns and sirens sounding, fanned out around the home of Brian Decker, another Sacramento resident. The officers forced Decker to walk backward out of his home in only his underwear around 7 am while his neighbors watched. The deputies said that he, too, was under suspicion of illegally growing cannabis. Invasion of the privacy snatchers According to a motion the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed in Sacramento Superior Court last week, Nguyen and Decker are only two of more than 33,000 Sacramento-area people who have been flagged to the Sheriff’s department by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the electricity provider for the region. SMUD called the customers out for using what it and department investigators said were suspiciously high amounts of electricity indicative of illegal cannabis farming. The EFF, citing investigator and SMUD records, said the utility unilaterally analyzes customers’ electricity usage in “painstakingly” detailed increments of every 15 minutes. When analysts identify patterns they deem likely signs of illegal grows, they notify Sheriff’s investigators. The EFF said the practice violates privacy protections guaranteed by the federal and California governments and is seeking a court order barring the warrantless disclosures. “SMUD’s disclosures invade the privacy of customers’ homes,” EFF attorneys wrote in a court document in support of last week’s motion. “The whole exercise is the digital equivalent of a door-to-door search of an entire city. The home lies at the ‘core’ of constitutional privacy protection.” Contrary to SMUD and sheriff’s investigator claims that the likely illegal grows are accurate, the EFF cited multiple examples where they have been wrong. In Decker’s case, for instance, SMUD analysts allegedly told investigators his electricity usage indicated that “4 to 5 grow lights are being used [at his home] from 7pm to 7am.” In actuality, the EFF said, someone in the home was mining cryptocurrency. Nguyen’s electricity consumption was the result of a spinal injury that requires him to use an electric wheelchair and special HVAC equipment to maintain his body temperature. Read More

Apple has released the fourth developer betas of iOS 26, iPadOS 26, macOS 26 and its other next-generation software updates today. And along with their other changes and fixes, the new builds are bringing back Apple Intelligence notification summaries for news apps. Apple disabled news notification summaries as part of the iOS 18.3 update in January. Incorrect summaries circulating on social media prompted news organizations to complain to Apple, particularly after one summary said that Luigi Mangione, alleged murderer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, had died by suicide (he had not and has not). Upon installing the new update, users of Apple Intelligence-compatible devices will be asked to enable or disable three broad categories of notifications: those for “News & Entertainment” apps, for “Communication & Social” apps, and for all other apps. The operating systems will list sample apps based on what you currently have installed on your device. All Apple Intelligence notification summaries continue to be listed as “beta,” but Apple’s main change here is a big red disclaimer when you enable News & Entertainment notification summaries, pointing out that “summarization may change the meaning of the original headlines.” The notifications also get a special “summarized by Apple Intelligence” caption to further distinguish them from regular, unadulterated notifications. Read More

Gordon Pennycook: “It might be one of the biggest false consensus effects that’s been observed.” Credit: Aurich Lawson / Thinkstock Belief in conspiracy theories is often attributed to some form of motivated reasoning: People want to believe a conspiracy because it reinforces their worldview, for example, or doing so meets some deep psychological need, like wanting to feel unique. However, it might also be driven by overconfidence in their own cognitive abilities, according to a paper published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. The authors were surprised to discover that not only are conspiracy theorists overconfident, they also don’t realize their beliefs are on the fringe, massively overestimating by as much as a factor of four how much other people agree with them. “I was expecting the overconfidence finding,” co-author Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at Cornell University, told Ars. “If you’ve talked to someone who believes conspiracies, it’s self-evident. I did not expect them to be so ready to state that people agree with them. I thought that they would overestimate, but I didn’t think that there’d be such a strong sense that they are in the majority. It might be one of the biggest false consensus effects that’s been observed.” In 2015, Pennycook made headlines when he co-authored a paper demonstrating how certain people interpret “pseudo-profound bullshit” as deep observations. Pennycook et al. were interested in identifying individual differences between those who are susceptible to pseudo-profound BS and those who are not and thus looked at conspiracy beliefs, their degree of analytical thinking, religious beliefs, and so forth. They presented several randomly generated statements, containing “profound” buzzwords, that were grammatically correct but made no sense logically, along with a 2014 tweet by Deepak Chopra that met the same criteria. They found that the less skeptical participants were less logical and analytical in their thinking and hence much more likely to consider these nonsensical statements as being deeply profound. That study was a bit controversial, in part for what was perceived to be its condescending tone, along with questions about its methodology. But it did snag Pennycook et al. a 2016 Ig Nobel Prize. Last year we reported on another Pennycook study, presenting results from experiments in which an AI chatbot engaged in conversations with people who believed at least one conspiracy theory. That study showed that the AI interaction significantly reduced the strength of those beliefs, even two months later. The secret to its success: the chatbot, with its access to vast amounts of information across an enormous range of topics, could precisely tailor its counterarguments to each individual. “The work overturns a lot of how we thought about conspiracies, that they’re the result of various psychological motives and needs,” Pennycook said at the time. Miscalibrated from reality Pennycook has been working on this new overconfidence study since 2018, perplexed by observations indicating that people who believe in conspiracies also seem to have a lot of faith in their cognitive abilities—contradicting prior research finding that conspiracists are generally more intuitive. To investigate, he and his co-authors conducted eight separate studies that involved over 4,000 US adults. The assigned tasks were designed in such a way that participants’ actual performance and how they perceived their performance were unrelated. For example, in one experiment, they were asked to guess the subject of an image that was largely obscured. The subjects were then asked direct questions about their belief (or lack thereof) concerning several key conspiracy claims: the Apollo Moon landings were faked, for example, or that Princess Diana’s death wasn’t an accident. Four of the studies focused on testing how subjects perceived others’ beliefs. The results showed a marked association between subjects’ tendency to be overconfident and belief in conspiracy theories. And while a majority of participants believed a conspiracy’s claims just 12 percent of the time, believers thought they were in the majority 93 percent of the time. This suggests that overconfidence is a primary driver of belief in conspiracies. It’s not that believers in conspiracy theories are massively overconfident; there is no data on that, because the studies didn’t set out to quantify the degree of overconfidence, per Pennycook. Rather, “They’re overconfident, and they massively overestimate how much people agree with them,” he said. Ars spoke with Pennycook to learn more. Ars Technica: Why did you decide to investigate overconfidence as a contributing factor to believing conspiracies? Gordon Pennycook: There’s a popular sense that people believe conspiracies because they’re dumb and don’t understand anything, they don’t care about the truth, and they’re motivated by believing things that make them feel good. Then there’s the academic side, where that idea molds into a set of theories about how needs and motivations drive belief in conspiracies. It’s not someone falling down the rabbit hole and getting exposed to misinformation or conspiratorial narratives. They’re strolling down: “I like it over here. This appeals to me and makes me feel good.” Believing things that no one else agrees with makes you feel unique. Then there’s various things I think that are a little more legitimate: People join communities and there’s this sense of belongingness. How that drives core beliefs is different. Someone may stop believing but hang around in the community because they don’t want to lose their friends. Even with religion, people will go to church when they don’t really believe. So we distinguish beliefs from practice. What we observed is that they do tend to strongly believe these conspiracies despite the fact that there’s counter evidence or a lot of people disagree. What would lead that to happen? It could be their needs and motivations, but it could also be that there’s something about the way that they think where it just doesn’t occur to them that they could be wrong about it. And that’s where overconfidence comes in. Ars Technica: What makes this particular trait such a powerful driving force? Gordon Pennycook: Overconfidence is one of the most important core underlying components, because if you’re overconfident, it stops