It shows that the author hasn't thought about their audience and has assumed that everyone knew and used the same terminology as them. And, worse, assumed that they'd understand immediately why they were using that terminology.
The opening is If you read the news headlines these days, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Western labs are getting spawn-camped by Chinese labs en masse. If you don't know what spawn-camping is you're lost; if you do it's not obvious what that means in this context. Good writing brings the reader along with the writer.
It would have been clearer if they'd written: If you read the news headlines these days, you would be forgiven for thinking that Western AI labs are being outplayed by Chinese AI labs using something similar to the gamer technique of "spawn-camping". The Chinese appear to be waiting for each Western release and then instantly distilling it. A little like gamers waiting for their opponents to reappear (from the dead) at their camp and then kill them off immediately.
This is better because a reader unfamiliar with the idea of spawn-camping learns something and it explains the metaphor. But I could be wrong in my interpretation of why they are using spawn-camping since they fail to explain it.