The constant shuffling of key figures between OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google highlights that the most valuable asset in the AI race is a small group of elite researchers. These individuals can easily switch allegiances for better pay or projects, creating immense instability for even the most well-funded companies.
Related Insights
The 2017 "Attention Is All You Need" paper, written by eight Google researchers, laid the groundwork for modern LLMs. In a striking example of the innovator's dilemma, every author left Google within a few years to start or join other AI companies, representing a massive failure to retain pivotal talent at a critical juncture.
High-valuation AI companies are built on human capital, not assets. This creates a mercenary "NFL culture" where large "co-founding" teams with loose titles will quickly leave for better opportunities if the initial vision falters, making these investments exceptionally volatile.
The intense talent war in AI is hyper-concentrated. All major labs are competing for the same cohort of roughly 150-200 globally-known, elite researchers who are seen as capable of making fundamental breakthroughs, creating an extremely competitive and visible talent market.
The creation of talent agency CAA in 1975 by agents who defected from a larger firm mirrors the current AI landscape, where top researchers leave established labs like OpenAI to found competitors like Anthropic. This suggests that talent-driven industries consistently see cycles of unbundling led by key players.
The drama at Thinking Machines, where co-founders were fired and immediately rejoined OpenAI, shows the extreme volatility of AI startups. Top talent holds immense leverage, and personal disputes can quickly unravel a company as key players have guaranteed soft landings back at established labs, making retention incredibly difficult.
Top AI labs face a difficult talent problem: if they restrict employee equity liquidity, top talent leaves for higher salaries. If they provide too much liquidity, newly-wealthy researchers leave to found their own competing startups, creating a constant churn that seeds the ecosystem with new rivals.
In a group of 100 experts training an AI, the top 10% will often drive the majority of the model's improvement. This creates a power law dynamic where the ability to source and identify this elite talent becomes a key competitive moat for AI labs and data providers.
The constant movement of researchers between top AI labs prevents any single company from maintaining a decisive, long-term advantage. Key insights are carried by people, ensuring new ideas spread quickly throughout the ecosystem, even without open-sourcing code.
The frenzied competition for the few thousand elite AI scientists has created a culture of constant job-hopping for higher pay, akin to a sports transfer season. This instability is slowing down major scientific progress, as significant breakthroughs require dedicated teams working together for extended periods, a rarity in the current environment.
Despite Meta offering nine-figure bonuses to retain top AI employees, its chief AI scientist is leaving to launch his own startup. This proves that in a hyper-competitive field like AI, the potential upside and autonomy of being a founder can be more compelling than even the most extravagant corporate retention packages.
