Connect with us

Tools & Platforms

The role of personality traits in predicting educational use of generative AI in higher education

Published

2 weeks ago

on


  • McTear, M. Conversational AI. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02176-3 (Springer, 2021).

  • Arpaci, I. A. & Multianalytical, S. E. M. A. N. N. Approach to investigate the social sustainability of AI chatbots based on cybersecurity and protection motivation theory. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 71, 1714–1725 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Gibreel, O. & Arpaci, I. Development and validation of the prompt engineering competence scale (PECS). Inf. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669251336455 (2025).


    Google Scholar     

  • Al-Sharafi, M. A. et al. Generation Z use of artificial intelligence products and its impact on environmental sustainability: A cross-cultural comparison. Comput. Hum. Behav. 143, 107708 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Hansen, H. F., Lillesund, E., Mikalef, P. & Altwaijry, Ν. Understanding artificial intelligence diffusion through an AI capability maturity model. Inf. Syst. Front. 26, 2147–2163 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Homolak, J. Opportunities and risks of ChatGPT in medicine, science, and academic publishing: a modern promethean dilemma. Croat Med. J. 64, 1–3 (2023).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  • Li, B., Bonk, C. J., Wang, C. & Kou, X. Reconceptualizing Self-Directed learning in the era of generative AI: an exploratory analysis of Language learning. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 17, 1515–1529 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R. & Li, N. Exploring students’ perspectives on generative AI-assisted academic writing. Educ. Inf. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Stokel-Walker, C. & Van Noorden, R. What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature 614, 214–216 (2023).

    ADS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Lund, B. D. & Wang, T. Chatting about chatgpt: how May AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Libr. Hi Tech. News. 40, 26–29 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Chiu, T. K. F., Xia, Q., Zhou, X., Chai, C. S. & Cheng, M. Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 4, 100118 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Shen, Y. et al. ChatGPT and other large Language models are Double-edged swords. Radiology 307, e230163 (2023).

  • Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O. & Wals, A. A SWOT analysis of chatgpt: Implications for educational practice and research. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 (2023).

  • Chen, Y., Jensen, S., Albert, L. J., Gupta, S. & Lee, T. Artificial intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: designing chatbots to support student success. Inf. Syst. Front. 25, 161–182 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Labadze, L., Grigolia, M. & Machaidze, L. Role of AI chatbots in education: systematic literature review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20, 56 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Wang, X., Lin, X. & Shao, B. Artificial intelligence changes the way we work: A close look at innovating with chatbots. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 74, 339–353 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Arpaci, I., Baloglu, M., Kozan, H. I. Ö. & Kesici, S. Individual differences in the relationship between attachment and nomophobia among college students: The mediating role of mindfulness. J. Med. Internet Res. 19 (2017).

  • Arpaci, I., Abdeljawad, T., Baloğlu, M., Kesici, Ş. & Mahariq, I. Mediating effect of internet addiction on the relationship between individualism and cyberbullying: Cross-Sectional questionnaire study. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, 1–14 (2020).


    Google Scholar     

  • Arpaci, I. & Kocadag Unver, T. Moderating role of gender in the relationship between big five personality traits and smartphone addiction. Psychiatr Q. 91, 577–585 (2020).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Özteke Kozan, H. İ., Baloğlu, M., Kesici, Ş. & Arpacı, İ. The role of personality and psychological needs on the problematic internet use and problematic social media use. Addicta Turkish J. Addict. 6, 203–219 (2019).


    Google Scholar     

  • Arpaci, I., Karatas, K., Kusci, I. & Al-Emran, M. Understanding the social sustainability of the metaverse by integrating UTAUT2 and big five personality traits: A hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Technol. Soc. 71, 102120 (2022).


    Google Scholar     

  • Chan, C. K. & Hu, W. Y. Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 20 (2023).

  • An, Y., Ouyang, W. & Zhu, F. ChatGPT in higher education: design teaching model involving ChatGPT. Lect Notes Educ. Psychol. Public. Media. 24, 47–56 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Al-Zahrani, A. M. The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2271445 (2023).

  • Jauhiainen, J. S. & Guerra, A. G. Generative AI and ChatGPT in school children’s education: evidence from a school lesson. Sustainability 15, 14025 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I. & Pechenkina, E. Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A Paradoxical perspective from management educators. Int. J. Manag Educ. 21, 100790 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Wang, N., Wang, X. & Su, Y. S. Critical analysis of the technological affordances, challenges and future directions of generative AI in education: a systematic review. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 44, 139–155 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Eysenck, H. J. The Structure of Human Personality (Methuen, 1970).

  • McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs type indicator from the perspective of the Five‐Factor model of personality. J. Pers. 57, 17–40 (1989).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M. & Eno, C. A. Who blogs? Personality predictors of blogging. Comput. Hum. Behav. 24, 1993–2004 (2008).


    Google Scholar     

  • Goren-Bar, D., Graziola, I., Pianesi, F. & Zancanaro, M. The influence of personality factors on visitor attitudes towards adaptivity dimensions for mobile museum guides. User Model. User-adapt Interact. 16, 31–62 (2006).


    Google Scholar     

  • McCrae, R. R. & John, O. P. An introduction to the Five-Factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60, 175–215 (1992).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Poškus, M. S. & Žukauskienė, R. Predicting adolescents’ recycling behavior among different big five personality types. J. Environ. Psychol. 54, 57–64 (2017).


    Google Scholar     

  • Kaya, F. et al. The roles of personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographic factors in attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730 (2022).

  • Schepman, A. & Rodway, P. The general attitudes towards artificial intelligence scale (GAAIS): confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. Int. J. Human–Computer Interact. 39, 2724–2741 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Weinstein, T. A. R. & Capitanio, J. P. A nonhuman primate perspective on affiliation. Behav. Brain Sci. 28 (2005).

  • Devaraj, U. S., Easley, R. F. & Crant, M. How does personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology acceptance and use. Inf. Syst. Res. 19, 93–105 (2008).


    Google Scholar     

  • Barnett, T., Pearson, A. W., Pearson, R. & Kellermanns, F. W. Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 24, 374–390 (2015).


    Google Scholar     

  • Lee, Y. K., Chang, C. T., Lin, Y. & Cheng, Z. H. The dark side of smartphone usage: psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Comput. Hum. Behav. 31, 373–383 (2014).


    Google Scholar     

  • Amichai-Hamburger, Y. & Vinitzky, G. Social network use and personality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26, 1289–1295 (2010).


    Google Scholar     

  • Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, M. W. Personality and Individual Differences (Springer, 1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2413-3

  • Digman, J. M. Personality structure emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41, 417–440 (1990).

  • Major, D. A., Turner, J. E. & Fletcher, T. D. Linking proactive personality and the big five to motivation to learn and development activity. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 927–935 (2006).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S. & Beaubien, J. M. A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation Nomological net. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 128–150 (2007).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Seibert, D., Godulla, A. & Wolf, C. Understanding how personality affects the acceptance of technology: A literature review. Media Commun. 1–24 (2021).

  • Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44, 1–26 (1991).


    Google Scholar     

  • Svendsen, G. B., Johnsen, J. A. K., Almås-Sørensen, L. & Vittersø, J. Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the technology acceptance model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32, 323–334 (2013).


    Google Scholar     

  • David, D., Montgomery, G. H., Stan, R., DiLorenzo, T. & Erblich, J. Discrimination between hopes and expectancies for nonvolitional outcomes: psychological phenomenon or artifact? Pers. Individ Dif. 36, 1945–1952 (2004).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  • Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory. Psychol. Assess. 4, 5–13 (1992).


    Google Scholar     

  • Prasetya, W. Y. S., Shihab, M. R. & Sandhyaduhita, P. I. Exploring the roles of personality factors on knowledge management system acceptance. In 3rd International Conference on Information Communication Technology. 107–112 (IEEE, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoICT.2015.7231406

  • Tanaka, J. S. How big is big enough? Sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with latent variables. Child. Dev. 58, 134 (1987).


    Google Scholar     

  • Hundleby, J. D. & Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory. Am. Educ. Res. J. 5, 431 (1968).


    Google Scholar     

  • Benet-Martínez, V. & John, O. P. Los Cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and english. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 729–750 (1998).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Sümer, N., Lajunen, T. & Özkan, T. Big five personality traits as the distal predictors of road accident involvement. Traffic Transp. Psychol. 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008044379-9/50173-4 (2005).

  • Arpaci, I. A hybrid modeling approach for predicting the educational use of mobile cloud computing services in higher education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 90, 181–187 (2019).


    Google Scholar     

  • Al-Sharafi, M. A. et al. Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 7491–7510 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. Self-Reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J. Manage. 12, 531–544 (1986).


    Google Scholar     

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135 (2015).


    Google Scholar     

  • Mittal, U., Sai, S., Chamola, V. & Sangwan, D. A comprehensive review on generative AI for education. IEEE Access. 12, 142733–142759 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Celik, I., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H. & Järvelä, S. The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: a systematic review of research. TechTrends 66, 616–630 (2022).


    Google Scholar     

  • Asad, M. M. & Ajaz, A. Impact of ChatGPT and generative AI on lifelong learning and upskilling learners in higher education: unveiling the challenges and opportunities globally. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-06-2024-0103 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Capraro, V. et al. The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS Nexus 3 (2024).

  • Ali, I. M. & Arpaci, I. The role of moral intention and moral obligation in predicting attitudes toward avoiding aigiarism: A protection motivation theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep. 18, 100681 (2025).


    Google Scholar     

  • Muck, P. M. Review of the German version of the ‘revised NEO personality inventory by Costa and McCrae (NEO-PI-R)’ by F. Ostendorf and A. Angleitner. Z. Fur Arbeits- Und Organ. 48, 203–210 (2004).


    Google Scholar     

  • De Raad, B. Personality traits in learning and education. Eur. J. Pers. 10, 185–200 (1996).


    Google Scholar     

  • Gobert, J. D., Pedro, S., Betts, C. G. & M. A. & An AI-Based teacher dashboard to support students’ inquiry: design principles, features, and technological specifications. Handb. Res. Sci. Educ. Vol. III 3, 1011–1044 (2023).


    Google Scholar     

  • Böckle, M., Yeboah-Antwi, K. & Kouris, I. Lecture Notes on Computer Science, LNAI. Vol. 12797. 3–20. (Springer, 2021).

  • Park, J. & Woo, S. E. Who likes artificial intelligence? Personality predictors of attitudes toward artificial intelligence?. J. Psychol. 156, 68–94 (2022).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Jang, J. & Kim, J. Exploring the Impact of Avatar Customization in Metaverse: The Role of the Class Mode on Task Engagement and Expectancy-Value Beliefs for Fashion Education. Mob. Inf. Syst. 1–13 (2023).

  • Zhou, T. & Lu, Y. The effects of personality traits on user acceptance of mobile commerce. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 27, 545–561 (2011).


    Google Scholar     

  • Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A. & Hair, E. C. Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 820–835 (1996).

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar     

  • Mustafa, S., Zhang, W. & Why do I share? Participants’ personality traits and online participation. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 40, 3763–3781 (2024).

  • Graziano, W. G. & Tobin, R. M. Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior. 46–61 (The Guilford Press,2009).

  • Mou, Y. & Xu, K. The media inequality: comparing the initial human-human and human-AI social interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72, 432–440 (2017).


    Google Scholar     

  • Munnukka, J., Talvitie-Lamberg, K. & Maity, D. Anthropomorphism and social presence in Human–Virtual service assistant interactions: the role of dialog length and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 135, 107343 (2022).


    Google Scholar     

  • Kurian, N. AI’s empathy gap: the risks of conversational artificial intelligence for young children’s well-being and key ethical considerations for early childhood education and care. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 26, 132–139 (2025).


    Google Scholar     

  • Okdie, B. M., Guadagno, R. E., Bernieri, F. J., Geers, A. L. & Mclarney-Vesotski, A. R. Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27, 153–159 (2011).

  • Dong, W., Pan, D. & Kim, S. Exploring the integration of IoT and generative AI in english Language education: smart tools for personalized learning experiences. J. Comput. Sci. 82, 102397 (2024).


    Google Scholar     

  • Clarizia, F., Colace, F., Lombardi, M., Pascale, F. & Santaniello, D. Chatbot: An education support system for student. In Lecture Notes on Computer Science (including Subseries Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence Lecture Notes on Bioinformatics). LNCS . Vol. 11161. 291–302 (Springer, 2018).

  • Arpaci, İ. An investigation of the relationship between university students’ innovativeness profile and their academic success in the project development course. J. Entrep Innov. Manag. 7, 79–95 (2018).


    Google Scholar     

  • Boun, K. & Makmee, P. Peera wongupparaj. Development of future skills assessment criteria for undergraduate students in cambodia: mixed methods research. J. Behav. Sci. 16, 85–100 (2021).


    Google Scholar     

  • Makmee, P. Future skills of tertiary students required for industry in the Eastern special development zone of Thailand. J. Behav. Sci. 16, 85–100 (2021).

  • Chen, Y., Esmaeilzadeh, P. & Generative, A. I. Medical practice: In-Depth exploration of privacy and security challenges. J. Med. Internet Res. 26, e53008 (2024).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     

  • Uddin, J., Feng, C. & Xu, J. Health communication on the internet: promoting public health and exploring disparities in the generative AI era. J. Med. Internet Res. 27, e66032 (2025).

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar     



    • Source link

    Related Topics:
    Continue Reading
    Click to comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Tools & Platforms

    AI, lasers and chips: the science and tech of China’s military parade

    Published

    32 minutes ago

    on

    September 4, 2025

    By


    China’s military parade on Wednesday – featuring the latest AI-powered uncrewed vehicles, laser weapons and missiles – signalled an arms race fuelled by scientific and technological advances.

    Artificial intelligence, optics and physics and information technologies have underscored how innovations will shape the future of modern warfare, paving the way for futuristic intelligent systems.

    “The parade featured unmanned intelligent systems, underwater combat units, cyber and electronic forces and hypersonic weapons, highlighting the growing capacity of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to harness emerging technologies, adapt to the evolving character of warfare, and prevail in future conflicts,” state broadcaster CCTV said.

    The weapons on parade featured a “high level of informatisation, intelligence and practical combat capability, showcasing the military’s combat abilities, capabilities in new domains and strong strategic deterrence”, Dong Yongzai, a researcher at a centre under Beijing’s Academy of Military Science, told CCTV.

    AI-powered equipment and vehicles

    The parade showcased a variety of AI-powered uncrewed equipment.

    The land combat formation showed vehicles that can perform reconnaissance, assaults, mine and bomb defusing and squad support, according to CCTV.



    Source link

    Continue Reading

    Tools & Platforms

    Janus Health Joins Cipher Collective as Revenue Cycle Technology Provider in AI-Enabled Healthcare Initiative – geneonline.com

    Published

    1 hour ago

    on

    September 4, 2025

    By



    Janus Health Joins Cipher Collective as Revenue Cycle Technology Provider in AI-Enabled Healthcare Initiative  geneonline.com



    Source link

    Continue Reading

    Tools & Platforms

    SoftBank rides tech rally with AI investments, but will they pay off?

    Published

    2 hours ago

    on

    September 4, 2025

    By


    SoftBank Group has been among the top performers on Tokyo’s Prime market this year, surging on the back of a US tech rally powered by an artificial intelligence boom.

    The conglomerate’s increasing AI investments have fueled hopes for lucrative returns, but some investors are still mulling whether it’s worth the bet.

    Shares in SoftBank are up more than half this year, gaining steam over the last few months and outperforming the benchmark Nikkei Stock Average’s 8.5% gain. SoftBank touched an all-time closing high of JPY 16,705 (USD 113) on Aug. 18, helping push the Nikkei average to a record high last month, before tumbling to the 14,000 level.

    Tomoichiro Kubota, a senior market analyst at Matsui Securities in Tokyo, said the stock’s more recent weakness reflected concerns among retail investors that its rally was due for a pause.

    “SoftBank’s share price doubled in a short period of time as expectations and hopes for its future growth climbed very quickly,” he said. “Long-term institutional investors operate differently, but for Japanese retail investors, it was an opportunity to short-sell the stock amid the rapid rise.”

    The stock had been buoyed by a string of announcements and news headlines.

    Just days after the Japanese giant revealed that it would invest USD 2 billion in Intel and acquire a stake of around 2%, President Donald Trump said the US government will take a roughly 10% stake in the chipmaker in exchange for outstanding federal grants.

    “Semiconductors are the foundation of every industry,” Masayoshi Son, the chairman and CEO of SoftBank, said in a statement on August 26. The “strategic investment” in Intel “reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the US, with Intel playing a critical role.”

    Intel is just one of SoftBank’s many bets on AI and semiconductors, as the company has accelerated investments in such advanced technologies.

    UK-based chip designer Arm, which SoftBank bought in 2016 for USD 31 billion, is reportedly considering developing AI chips under its own brand. In the past year or so, SoftBank has acquired AI chipmaker Graphcore and US chip designer startup Ampere Computing. The Japanese company has increased its stake in Nvidia, as well as the world’s top chip foundry, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC).

    In March, ChatGPT creator OpenAI announced that it secured fresh funding of USD 40 billion from investors, including USD 30 billion from SoftBank. OpenAI is reportedly preparing to sell around USD 6 billion in stock to investors, including SoftBank, as part of a secondary sale that would value the company at roughly USD 500 billion.

    “These investments are further emphasis of a longer-term theme, in our view, involving SoftBank Group focusing on AI ecosystem plays, as opposed to technology more broadly, or other verticals like consumer, as we have seen in the past,” said Paul Golding, a senior digital infrastructure and payments analyst at Macquarie in New York.

    Golding added that SoftBank has been using its non-AI investments “as funding sources for reinvestment into what we would consider to be more pure play AI investments.”

    SoftBank’s Son has taken a key role in Trump’s AI push. Trump said in January that OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank pledged USD 500 billion to the Stargate project to build data centers across the US.

    “The perception of SoftBank has changed significantly. Investors now see SoftBank as an AI company rather than an investment company,” said Takashi Nakagawa, senior analyst at Tokai Tokyo Intelligence Laboratory.

    At the company’s annual general meeting in June, Son told shareholders that in ten years, his company aims to become the world’s leading platform provider for artificial superintelligence (ASI), leveraging the strengths of Arm and OpenAI.

    The tycoon said that just like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have defined the digital age, he wishes for SoftBank to become the foundational company in ASI.

    Earlier this month, the company reported a JPY 421.8 billion (USD 2.9 billion) net profit for the three months ended in June, posting its first profit for that quarter in four years, as valuations in its Vision Funds’ portfolio improved. Gains in shares of South Korean online retailer Coupang and ride-hailing firm Grab helped the tech investment arm, as did a rise in Nvidia’s stock price.

    SoftBank’s net asset value (asset value minus liabilities), which shows how well the company is doing with its investments, jumped 26% to JPY 32.4 trillion (USD 222.8 billion) as of June from three months before. The increase was largely due to a rise in the market capitalization of Arm, which accounts for half of the value of the stocks it holds.

    Oliver Matthew, head of Asia consumer research at CLSA, said, “I think SoftBank has consistently shown that they get the paradigm shifts in technology correct, and they make big investments in those shifts.”

    Matthew said SoftBank has been “extremely successful” with its bets on Arm and the US carrier Sprint, both of which initially received a “quite negative” response from investors. “But they turned out to be brilliant investments over the longer-term horizon.”

    Along with expectations for SoftBank’s future growth, also at play are investors eager to gain access to OpenAI.

    OpenAI is a private company that was founded in 2015 as a nonprofit, open-source model. But it has a for-profit division and scrapped plans to convert entirely into a for-profit business.

    “When I talk to investors, [SoftBank’s] rally seems to be driven by a belief that, for institutional investors who cannot directly invest in OpenAI, one way for them to invest is through buying SoftBank’s public equity stock,” said Atul Goyal, equity analyst at Jefferies in Singapore who has been covering Asia’s tech, media, and telecommunication sectors for around two decades.

    Goyal said that whether investments in OpenAI will pay off depends on whether the company can convert itself into a for-profit business. SoftBank has said it could reduce the size of its funding to OpenAI if it fails in its transition this year.

    Some analysts have flagged concerns and potential risks for the Japanese tech giant stemming from its increasing exposure to AI.

    A recent report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed a cold truth for companies betting on AI. While US businesses have invested between USD 35 billion to USD 40 billion in generative AI, it said that a whopping 95% of businesses are “getting zero return” on their investments.

    Based on the valuations OpenAI has been given by investors, the startup “is an extremely valuable business now,” said Dan Baker, senior equity analyst at Morningstar in Australia. “But no one’s really sure about how exactly they’re going to make money.”

    SoftBank’s involvement in cutting-edge technologies and advanced businesses comes with “more risks on the equity value,” Baker said. Such investments may not bear fruit for some time, he said. “I guess that’s what Son has done in the past. He’s taken those sorts of risks.”

    This article first appeared on Nikkei Asia. It has been republished here as part of 36Kr’s ongoing partnership with Nikkei.





    Source link

    Continue Reading

    Trending