FTC seeks more information about SoftBank's Ampere deal: Report
The inquiry, known formally as a second request for information, suggests the acquisition may undergo an extended government review, the report said.
SoftBank announced the purchase of the startup in March, part of its efforts to ramp up its investments in artificial intelligence infrastructure.
The report did not state the reasoning for the FTC request.
SoftBank, Ampere and the FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
SoftBank is an active investor in U.S. tech. It is leading the financing for the $500 billion Stargate data centre project and has agreed to invest $32 billion in ChatGPT-maker OpenAI.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini not helping? Here's how to fix your prompts for better output
AI chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and Anthropic's Claude are increasingly woven into the fabric of daily life, assisting with everything from writing and coding to travel planning and customer service. But if you are not impressed with the results, the problem may not lie with the bot. Instead, it could be your prompt. According to an AP report, industry experts and the chatbot creators themselves agree: the key to unlocking accurate, creative and useful responses lies in how you communicate with these tools. Whether you are seeking help drafting a speech or planning a holiday, refining your input can make all the difference. Unlike a traditional web search, AI chatbots do not respond well to keyword-heavy or ambiguous instructions. 'Ensure your prompts are clear, specific, and provide enough context,' OpenAI advises. Rather than asking it to simply 'design a logo,' users should include the business name, industry, colour preferences and design style. The more detailed the request, the more personalised the response. Chatbot interactions are not one-and-done. Think of them more as a conversation. OpenAI recommends tweaking the wording, simplifying complex requests, or adding fresh context to achieve better output. Google echoes this in its Gemini prompting guide, noting that users should be ready to experiment with different phrasing. Iteration is key. If the first response falls flat, adjust and try again. You can shape the tone and voice of an AI's output by explicitly stating the style you want: professional, casual, humorous or formal. Chatbots can also adjust their language depending on the intended audience, whether it is schoolchildren or industry experts. This helps create responses that are not just accurate, but appropriately pitched. Generic inputs yield generic answers. If you ask for a 'weeklong itinerary in London,' the bot might list the city's usual tourist hotspots. But add context, such as your interests, budget, travel dates and group details, and the result becomes a far more tailored and relevant plan. As Google's guidance notes, examples and background information help the AI understand exactly what you need. If you are overwhelmed by long-winded responses, you can take control by setting limits. Ask the chatbot to respond in a specific format or with a word count cap, for example, 'Explain in under 150 words,' or 'Summarise in five bullet points.' This kind of constraint pushes the AI to be concise and focused, helping users absorb complex topics more easily.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Bill Gates' daughter taps ChatGPT to taste startup success: Here's all you need to know
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Tech billionaire Bill Gates' daughter's fashion tech startup Phia , has made headlines as the founder, Phoebe Gates , revealed her marketing strategy woven around artificial intelligence (AI) Gates said AI tools like ChatGPT have been a creative partner for her startup, Phia, to track market trends and viral content on social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok The comments came during her interaction with cofounder Sophia Kianni on The Burnouts podcast, which was started by the duo to invite guests who candidly talk about their careers and experiences as startup founder goes on to explain the marketing plan. Phia collects data of top-performing videos from Instagram and TikTok, records the data in Excel, and does an in-depth analysis of them, noting the minute details like lighting, narrative, tone, in 2022 by Phoebe Gates, the startup works as an AI assistant that helps you shop smartly by offering the best brand deals teamed up with her former Stanford roommate and climate activist Sophia Kianni to launch Phia to transform online startup claims that it tracks over 40,000 sites to find the best price for the customer and that the end-to-end personal shopping assistant has partnered with thousands of brands to make it possible. Among its standout features are the "Should I Buy This?" button and personalised shopping preferences, both aimed at making shopping simpler and more also allows users to create shoppable moodboards. Through this, users can gain insights into stock and price app's vast database includes over 250 million secondhand items from platforms such as The RealReal, Vestiaire Collective, and Poshmark. It operates as an iOS app and a Chrome browser extension, catering to users on mobile and has already attracted investments from prominent figures, including businessperson Kris Jenner and entrepreneur Desiree Gruber.
Scroll.in
2 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Can ChatGPT ‘rot' your brain as MIT study claims?
Since ChatGPT appeared almost three years ago, the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on learning has been widely debated. Are they handy tools for personalised education, or gateways to academic dishonesty? Most importantly, there has been concern that using AI will lead to a widespread 'dumbing down', or decline in the ability to think critically. If students use AI tools too early, the argument goes, they may not develop basic skills for critical thinking and problem-solving. Is that really the case? According to a recent study by scientists from MIT, it appears so. Using ChatGPT to help write essays, the researchers say, can lead to 'cognitive debt' and a 'likely decrease in learning skills'. So what did the study find? Brain vs AI Over the course of four months, the MIT team asked 54 adults to write a series of three essays using either AI (ChatGPT), a search engine, or their own brains ('brain-only' group). The team measured cognitive engagement by examining electrical activity in the brain and through linguistic analysis of the essays. The cognitive engagement of those who used AI was significantly lower than the other two groups. This group also had a harder time recalling quotes from their essays and felt a lower sense of ownership over them. Interestingly, participants switched roles for a final, fourth essay (the brain-only group used AI and vice versa). The AI-to-brain group performed worse and had engagement that was only slightly better than the other group's during their first session, far below the engagement of the brain-only group in their third session. The authors claim this demonstrates how prolonged use of AI led to participants accumulating 'cognitive debt'. When they finally had the opportunity to use their brains, they were unable to replicate the engagement or perform as well as the other two groups. Cautiously, the authors note that only 18 participants (six per condition) completed the fourth, final session. Therefore, the findings are preliminary and require further testing. Does AI really make us stupider? These results do not necessarily mean that students who used AI accumulated 'cognitive debt'. In our view, the findings are due to the particular design of the study. The change in neural connectivity of the brain-only group over the first three sessions was likely the result of becoming more familiar with the study task, a phenomenon known as the familiarisation effect. As study participants repeat the task, they become more familiar and efficient, and their cognitive strategy adapts accordingly. When the AI group finally got to 'use their brains', they were only doing the task once. As a result, they were unable to match the other group's experience. They achieved only slightly better engagement than the brain-only group during the first session. To fully justify the researchers' claims, the AI-to-brain participants would also need to complete three writing sessions without AI. Similarly, the fact the brain-to-AI group used ChatGPT more productively and strategically is likely due to the nature of the fourth writing task, which required writing an essay on one of the previous three topics. As writing without AI required more substantial engagement, they had a far better recall of what they had written in the past. Hence, they primarily used AI to search for new information and refine what they had previously written. What are the implications? To understand the current situation with AI, we can look back to what happened when calculators first became available. Back in the 1970s, their impact was regulated by making exams much harder. Instead of doing calculations by hand, students were expected to use calculators and spend their cognitive efforts on more complex tasks. Effectively, the bar was significantly raised, which made students work equally hard (if not harder) than before calculators were available. The challenge with AI is that, for the most part, educators have not raised the bar in a way that makes AI a necessary part of the process. Educators still require students to complete the same tasks and expect the same standard of work as they did five years ago. In such situations, AI can indeed be detrimental. Students can for the most part offload critical engagement with learning to AI, which results in ' metacognitive laziness '. However, just like calculators, AI can and should help us accomplish tasks that were previously impossible – and still require significant engagement. For example, we might ask teaching students to use AI to produce a detailed lesson plan, which will then be evaluated for quality and pedagogical soundness in an oral examination. In the MIT study, participants who used AI were producing the 'same old' essays. They adjusted their engagement to deliver the standard of work expected of them. The same would happen if students were asked to perform complex calculations with or without a calculator. The group doing calculations by hand would sweat, while those with calculators would barely blink an eye. Learning how to use AI Current and future generations need to be able to think critically and creatively and solve problems. However, AI is changing what these things mean. Producing essays with pen and paper is no longer a demonstration of critical thinking ability, just as doing long division is no longer a demonstration of numeracy. Knowing when, where and how to use AI is the key to long-term success and skill development. Prioritising which tasks can be offloaded to an AI to reduce cognitive debt is just as important as understanding which tasks require genuine creativity and critical thinking. Vitomir Kovanovic is Associate Professor and Associate Director of the Centre for Change and Complexity in Learning (C3L), Education Futures, University of South Australia. Rebecca Marrone.
