Could be a lot of reasons. A big one i see working at a large company myself is that AI needs to draw from a lot of data to do its work. A huge amount of contextual data too. A company like MSFT inevitably needs to provide AI with a walled-off curated set of data, and prevent any of it from leaking. Its AIs will not have the same amount of data an AI can draw from outside MSFT.

If you take a step back, why would Linux development be able to succeed at all when Microsoft has far more money, more maturity, and more employees?

Because development direction in open source software is decided by engineers instead of corporate politicians

Microsoft has had a lot of resources for decades and sucked at the most basic stuff the whole time. Not taking a stance on AI usage here, just saying that the idea that a company having more money is rarely connected to the quality of the product they create and, in fact, chasing profits often leads to products being worse.

Motivation is powetful influence on devolopment. The linux kernel is largley driven by UX and desire for technical excellence (there are ultier motive from some major factions but overall this is true and actions are judged publically as such).

Microsoft is, like most companies, driven by stockholder value creation.

One produces an enviroment in which cautious adoption of new tech is constant, a slow trickle for use where it seems most applicable.

The other demands that the perception of exclusive capital be created through vertical intergration with propritary IP and that the promise of cost reductions are underway. Aka Microslop trying to add a buzz word to every IP (percieved capital creation) and promising massive layoffs.

The same reason any personal projects (and not using it to diminish what linux projects are but to say that the people working on them do it because they want the project to progress, not because of any financial incentive) can do better then commercial projects: where the passion is at.

Someone just looking to get paid is more likely to say "ok this is good enough" and move on to the next thing. They are more likely to have managers breathing down their necks to get something done by some arbitrary deadline, too.

It's why indie games have been able to compete with AAA games. The latter are following a formula to get paid, plus are more willing to make compromises in the name of either saving costs or increasing revenue. The former just want to make their fun idea reality.

Also, MS has invested a ton of money into AI and seem to be getting desperate for a return on that. Which means there's a certain amount of denial about the quality. It's not just a tool to them, but a tool they desperately need to work and prove it's worth throwing a ton of money at.

But for anyone that it's simply a tool for, it can be useful. They are great rubber duckies. Like my last interaction with one was a case where it did horribly and was completely wrong about what "we were discussing", but I still got to the right conclusion despite it because going through the conversation helped me think it through.

And though it makes a lot of mistakes, its feedback isn't always wrong. The fact that it can rehash previous things from its history means its good at spotting new instances of problema that have already been solved. So accepting bug reports should be fine, just with the understanding that they each need to be looked at and some reports will need to be rejected because they are wrong.