Okay, so there are these big companies called Microsoft and Qualcomm that want to do cool things with artificial intelligence (AI). AI is like a smart helper that can learn and make decisions. But sometimes, when big companies want to work together or buy another company, they have to ask permission from some important people first. These important people are called regulators. They check if the deal is fair for everyone and doesn't let one company become too powerful.

So right now, Microsoft and Qualcomm are waiting for these regulators to say yes or no to their plans with AI. The regulators in places like the U.K. and Europe are looking very closely at what they want to do because they want to make sure it's okay for everyone else. If they don't think it's fair, they might stop Microsoft and Qualcomm from doing what they want. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that there is a widespread problem of regulatory scrutiny and global tech competition concerns for Microsoft and Qualcomm, when in reality it is only focused on specific deals and partnerships that are being examined by some authorities.
- The article uses vague terms like "US Big Tech" and "AI investments" without defining them or providing any context or statistics to support the claims of increasing scrutiny and competition. It also does not mention any benefits or positive outcomes of these deals for the companies involved, their customers, or society at large.
- The article relies heavily on external sources, such as Bloomberg and Benzinga, without acknowledging them or providing any critical analysis or evaluation of their credibility, accuracy, or motives. It also does not cite any primary sources, such as official statements, reports, or documents from the regulators, companies, or experts involved in the cases.
- The article presents a one-sided and negative view of the regulatory interventions, portraying them as obstacles or threats to Microsoft's and Qualcomm's AI ambitions, without considering any possible reasons or evidence for their concerns, such as antitrust issues, data protection, privacy, or fair competition. It also does not mention any precedents, best practices, or alternatives that could inform the regulatory process or outcomes.
- The article uses emotive language and rhetorical devices, such as "scrutiny", "opposition", "concerns", "examine", "watchdog", and "deadline" to create a sense of urgency, doubt, and pressure for the readers, without providing any factual or logical basis for them. It also uses terms like "succumbed" and "antimompetitive grounds" that imply a predetermined and negative outcome for the deals, without acknowledging any potential benefits or challenges they could bring.
- The article does not address any of the key questions that readers might have about the topic, such as why are these deals important, what are the main advantages and disadvantages of AI for the companies and their customers, how do the regulators decide on the approval or rejection of the deals, what are the possible consequences or implications of their decisions, and how can the readers stay informed and engaged with the issue.