Since modern AI is so new, no one has more than a few years of relevant experience. This levels the playing field. The best hiring strategy is to prioritize young, AI-native talent with a steep learning curve over senior engineers whose experience may be less relevant. Dynamism and adaptability trump tenure.

With industry dominating large-scale compute, academia's function is no longer to train the biggest models. Instead, its value lies in pursuing unconventional, high-risk research in areas like new algorithms, architectures, and theoretical underpinnings that commercial labs, focused on scaling, might overlook.

Early AI training involved simple preference tasks. Now, training frontier models requires PhDs and top professionals to perform complex, hours-long tasks like building entire websites or explaining nuanced cancer topics. The demand is for deep, specialized expertise, not just generalist labor.

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.

Multi-million dollar salaries for top AI researchers seem absurd, but they may be underpaid. These individuals aren't just employees; they are capital allocators. A single architectural decision can tie up or waste months of capacity on billion-dollar AI clusters, making their judgment incredibly valuable.

While compute and capital are often cited as AI bottlenecks, the most significant limiting factor is the lack of human talent. There is a fundamental shortage of AI practitioners and data scientists, a gap that current university output and immigration policies are failing to fill, making expertise the most constrained resource.

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 key technical skill for an AI PM is not deep knowledge of model architecture but a higher-level understanding of how to orchestrate AI components. Knowing what AI can do and how systems connect is more valuable than knowing the specifics of fine-tuning or RAG implementation.

At the start of a tech cycle, the few people with deep, practical experience often don't fit traditional molds (e.g., top CS degrees). Companies must look beyond standard credentials to find this scarce talent, much like early mobile experts who weren't always "cracked" competitive coders.