Key factors for me:

  - Company is full of old school engineers who seem to hate AI and will scrutinize every command it runs.  Means that even though we're both 'using' AI, I'm still way more productive.
  - Said engineers have too much inside knowledge of the horrific system they made that management can't possibly get rid of them.  Helps that they're workers-rights minded too.
  - Company has enough revenue to keep up payroll indefinitely.

Now, does the AI write good code? Often not. But the codebase is already terrible, so it's no big difference.

I wonder if the incumbents in each country actively lobby against it. I suppose it's easier for massive corporations to deal with cross border issues. The onerous regulatory boundaries are a nice price of entry for them that keeps out upstarts.

AMI has offices across the world. Fact is, companies often have at least an office where the CEO lives. Same when Musk kicked up a stink about 'leaving California'. It wasn't really anything of substance.

Depends what you mean. The academic work seems largely... fine? Plenty of good work came out of Europe or European researchers. It seems the problem is more "trying to build a trillion-dollar company of any kind".

It's an interesting question: does the EU seek only to regulate successful modern American companies to death, or home grown ones too? Probably not a gamble worth taking.

You say that you're Chinese so there's no such stereotyping involved, but actually Chinese people commit this sin against themselves all the time.

己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人

"wishing to stand, one helps others stand; wishing to succeed, one helps others succeed"

> that is one of the major reasons why companies there won't be open

But the AI labs _are_ often being open. And cloning stuff more generally doesn't really require OSS anyway. Product features are easily cloned in most cases, without any secret knowledge.

Hardly, it's one of the least IP-law burdened places in the world. Ready access to media, yes, but also scientific papers, books, etc. No real restrictions on duping products, so execution often becomes the winning ticket. That's all pretty open and good for consumers.

You could argue they won't allow SOTA models to be exported but it doesn't really have anything to do with Chinese culture not being compatible with openness.

For example, a tenant emails me about some issue relating to a specific property. It can go through my leases, find the right one, check other emails to see I ordered a new appliance to that specific address, track shipping/install, all that, then reply appropriately.

What diference does it make as long as the content is interesting and the tone not grating?

It's possible for a human being to use an LLM but guide it to a well-written piece that's worth consuming.

That seems very relevant to my evaluation. I can pull out my calculator right now and solve a problem no human ever has.

Such as?

You might as well tell me the suburban moms are not going to buy my developer tool because I've personally slighted them with the branding. Why would I care? I made my decisions knowing this.

In fact ditching low RoI customers is incredibly common and good startup advice.

We were already implicitly discussing RoI when we were talking about 'legal consequences' above. This is how people decide between alternatives, generally.