British regulators on Wednesday cleared Microsoft’s hiring of key staff from startup Inflection AI, saying the deal wouldn’t stifle competition in the country’s artificial intelligence market.

The Competition and Markets Authority had opened a preliminary investigation in July into Microsoft’s recruitment of Inflection’s core team, including co-founder and CEO Mustafa Suleyman, chief scientist Karen Simonyan and several top engineers and researchers.

The watchdog said its investigation found that the hirings amounted to a “merger situation” but that the “transaction does not give rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition.”

Big technology companies have been facing scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic lately for gobbling up talent and products at innovative AI startups without formally acquiring them.

Three U.S. Senators called for the practice to be investigated after Amazon pulled a similar maneuver this year in a deal with San Francisco-based Adept that sent its CEO and key employees to the e-commerce giant. Amazon also got a license to Adept’s AI systems and datasets.

The U.K. watchdog said Microsoft hired “almost all of Inflection’s team” and licensed its intellectual property, which gave it access to the startup’s AI model and chatbot development capabilities.

Inflection’s main product is a chatbot named Pi that specializes in “emotional intelligence” by being being “kind and supportive.”

However, the CMA said the deal won’t result in a big loss of competition because Inflection has a “very small” share of the U.K. consumer market for chatbots, and it lacks chatbot features that make it more attractive than rivals.

© 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Nearly 1 in 5 people in the world lives in poverty. Even in many developed countries such as the U.S., poverty rates exceed 12%. In an age of breathtaking technological progress and dynamic social change, poverty remains stubbornly persistent.

As a professor of entrepreneurship, I’m interested in a critical question: Can people in poverty create their own path to prosperity? In other words, is venture creation a viable poverty alleviation tool?

My work has shown that it can be—with the right kind of support. However, that support is often lacking.

A big part of the problem is ignorance: Most people simply don’t know much about poverty and entrepreneurship. There are plenty of myths when it comes to the ventures of the poor, due in part to the lack of hard data about the businesses of those in poverty.

These misconceptions have influenced public policy officials, economic development professionals and academics. As a result, they tend to undervalue the important economic and social role that these businesses play.

In an attempt to correct the record, here are six facts that people should know about poverty and entrepreneurship.

Fact 1: Poor people start businesses—lots of them

It’s a myth that entrepreneurship is just for the rich. In fact, many ventures across the globe are started by people in disadvantaged circumstances—actually most of them. While hard data is difficult to come by, the evidence we do have is suggestive. For example, in some high-poverty sub-Saharan African countries, as many as two out of three adults operate or are in the process of starting their own business.

Such small businesses are arguably the backbone of many developing economies, where over 50% of the population can be in poverty. Even within developed economies, such ventures can be responsible for a meaningful component of gross domestic product.

Fact 2: Businesses run by poor people create value

Although people in poverty disproportionately create “survival businesses” that generate small profits, it’s wrong to assume that makes these ventures less valuable. Such businesses provide jobs to millions of impoverished people, representing an economic lifeline. They create value in the marketplace, filling niches that aren’t attractive to incumbent firms.

And they create more than just economic value: These businesses are embedded in the fabric of communities, providing a source of social stability. They pay taxes and can produce spillover benefits such as reduced crime, increased school completion rates and community pride.

Fact 3: Entrepreneurship can help alleviate poverty

A growing body of research suggests that higher levels of entrepreneurship are associated with greater reductions in poverty. For example, one analysis found that areas with the highest rates of entrepreneurship among the poor demonstrated the largest reductions in poverty over a six-year period.

This shouldn’t come as a major surprise. After all, while people in poverty often create survival businesses that generate small profits, venture creation represents a critical vehicle for human capital development. People who start businesses learn how to organize production, manage cash, serve customers, set prices and coordinate logistics.

What’s more, the entrepreneurial experience can enable self-sufficiency, identity development, a sense of pride and purpose, and the ability to give back.

Fact 4: Off-the-books businesses have value for society

Poor entrepreneurs often start what economists call “informal” businesses—enterprises that aren’t registered with the government and that operate under the radar. These often attract criticism.

But while off-the-books businesses may not be legal, the informal sector represents 50% or more of the economy in many developing countries, and as much as 20% in some developed nations. It represents a vast incubator that sustains the poor as they experiment with businesses and learn. In my opinion, this hidden enterprise culture should be nurtured.

Fact 5: The biggest challenge isn’t always lack of money

People often assume that the key to helping the ventures of the poor is to provide more capital. But despite a clear need for funding, some entrepreneurs may not be ready to make effective use of additional money. Regardless of how motivated or hard-working they are, the core issue for entrepreneurs is the ability to convert means into ends.

When an entrepreneur lacks key abilities, such as bookkeeping, selling or inventory management, research suggests that to be effective, funding should be coupled with other forms of support. An investment is likely to be more productive when it is tied to participation in training and mentoring programs. Access to incubators, attendance at networking events and related developmental activities are also important.

Fact 6: There’s more than one way to succeed

People in the world of entrepreneurship love a big success story. It’s all about picking winners. That kind of thinking works against poor entrepreneurs, who generally start basic businesses that don’t employ novel technologies, and who often have severely limited resources.

To realize the potential of entrepreneurship, it’s worth rethinking the definition of success. For the poor, success could be getting the business established and making sales, earning a profit. It could be changing the entrepreneur’s economic circumstances, hiring employees—particularly others in poverty—or adding another location.

It could keep the business going for some number of years, providing a kind of legacy. Other success indicators can include reducing the dependency on one’s own labor, satisfying customers and the ability to give back to the community.

In the end, success is about having a better life. And research is demonstrating how entrepreneurship can make this possible.

Venture creation is not a silver bullet. Poverty is complex, and building a sustainable business is difficult. Realizing the promise of entrepreneurship requires that we get past these myths and develop the kinds of supportive environments that level the playing field.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You have probably opened your smartphone using your face. If you have traveled internationally, you have used your face to exit and enter the country. You may have even scanned your face to “verify” your online dating profile. But are you willing to use your face to pay for your morning coffee?

While facial recognition technology isn’t new, facial recognition payment technology (FRPT) is—and it’s growing very quickly.

An estimated 495 million Chinese shoppers used FRPT in 2021—roughly one third of China’s population. In 2025, financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase and Japan’s NEC Corporation plan to implement FRPT.

But will Australian and New Zealand shoppers adopt the technology so readily?

The psychology of face payment

Our new research investigated the psychological factors that may encourage shoppers to try FRPT.

According to the basic psychological need theory, people have three basic needs when adopting a new technology: autonomy (a sense of mastery and control over the technology), competence (the sense of integrity, reliability and trust in the technology) and relatedness (a sense of belonging or familiarity with the technology).

We conducted 21 in-depth interviews with potential users to find out what might motivate them to embrace the technology—and what might put them off.

Shoppers’ autonomy and competence were satisfied if they had access to information, considered the technology convenient, trusted the retailer and were offered an incentive. Subsequently, they were willing to trial and adopt FRPT.

Our research participants gained knowledge in multiple ways, including general internet sources, news websites, social media and the retailer itself.

Convenience factors, such as assured fast payments, ease of use and time-saving enhanced participants’ competence. As one said, “Yeah, I can see that if [FRPT] does encompass everything, that it probably would be more convenient, and as long as it works the first time, it would probably be quicker as well.”

The brand name, reputation, customer care and regular engagement with the retailer influenced greater levels of trust for shoppers. This in turn affected their FRPT trial intentions. Another told us, “I trust Woolworths more, compared to […] a small shop or not a national brand. Because I believe Woolworths will keep their image, they are going to take care of the customer data and their image.”

Finally, promotional rewards such as incentives, discounts or gifts for using FRPT enhanced autonomy and encouraged trialing intention.

Four barriers to adoption

Shoppers were less willing to trial and adopt FRPT if they were not familiar with the retailer, were satisfied with existing payment methods, perceived a lack of assistance, and were concerned about overspending.

When shoppers are unfamiliar with a retailer or brand, they are more skeptical and unsure about FRPT. As one person told us, “If you never heard of it, then you might be a bit skeptical as a whole. [If] I haven’t really heard of this retailer, I haven’t really heard of this system […] what is your purpose for this new technology?”

Shoppers were found to have preferred payment methods and these were found to reduce their FRPT adoption due to a reduced sense of autonomy.

“I don’t think I’d use it. I think I’d still just like tap my card, or maybe if I had set up my phone properly do it that way,” said one.

Physical stores were the most preferred location to trial FRPT, as opposed to online. Within a physical environment, potential users of FRPT could seek support from employees. As one research participant explained, “I definitely think try in a shop first […] I just think if something goes wrong, there is normally someone there that can sort it out.”

An interesting finding was the apprehension expressed regarding overspending and compulsive consumption. As one participant explained, “FRPT could be bad because then I’ve got no way of saying ‘I don’t have money on me.’ That is when you always have an open purse […] Yeah, sadly, facial recognition is always there.”

Privacy and security were a double-edged sword. Some shoppers were willing to adopt if privacy and security were assured. Others were concerned about facial image storage and data breaches. As one said, “I think, compared to a credit card or cash, [FRPT is] absolutely more secure […] Scammers would have to know a lot more about me to fake my face.”

Another said, “I do not think I would use it at all. You probably wouldn’t hear if a supermarket got hacked into and all the data leaked, so that’s out of your control […] I probably wouldn’t trust it.”

Calming consumer concerns

Retailers still have a long way to go to convince consumers to make transactions by scanning their faces. Our new research offers some directions forward.

Considering consumers’ concerns about technologies such as deepfakes and other uses of biometric data, retailers should communicate their advanced technology or collaborate with reputable FRPT developers.

Retailers who want to use FRPT need to implement in-store signage, point-of-purchase graphics and on-screen videos to communicate the benefits of FRPT. They should also focus on articulating the convenience elements of FRPT, as well as the security and privacy protocols.

Once they are trialing the technology, retailers will need to deploy extra staff to assist customers, and offer promotional incentives, possibly tied to loyalty programs.

An “alert limit”—in the same way credit card providers limit “tap and go” payment over a certain value—might help mitigate overspending risks.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.