OpenClaw creator on the AI adoption gap: U.S. employees may be laid off for 'raising lobsters'; Chinese employees will be fired for not using it

Headline claim and immediate context

It has been reported that the creator of OpenClaw told Chinese media that cultural and managerial differences are widening the AI adoption gap between the U.S. and China: in the United States, employees might be let go for misusing AI — “raising lobsters,” the remark reportedly said — while in China, workers can be fired for simply refusing to use AI tools. The comment frames adoption as not only a technological shift but a workplace cultural fault line with different enforcement logics on either side of the Pacific.

Why this matters

Reportedly, the remark has struck a chord because it captures how companies translate national policy and market incentives into everyday workplace discipline. For Western readers: China has pushed hard to embed AI into business workflows through state-backed funding, fast-moving domestic models and a managerial culture that often enforces new tools top-down. The U.S. model tends to be more decentralized and litigious, with firms relying on market pressure and performance metrics rather than blanket mandates.

Geopolitics and corporate strategy

Geopolitical dynamics complicate the picture. Export controls, sanctions and technology competition have encouraged Chinese firms to internalize AI stacks and accelerate deployment, while U.S. companies face supply-chain constraints and regulatory scrutiny that shape how aggressively they push AI to frontline staff. It has been reported that these cross-border pressures alter incentives for both rapid rollout and compliance, especially at multinational firms operating in both jurisdictions.

So what happens next?

If the reported contrast is accurate, the consequence could be a faster, more coercive uptake of AI in some Chinese workplaces and a messier, risk-managed rollout in many American firms. Which model will win in productivity and public acceptance? That remains unclear — and the original remarks have been reported by ifeng, not independently verified.