The investment thesis for new AI research labs isn't solely about building a standalone business. It's a calculated bet that the elite talent will be acquired by a hyperscaler, who views a billion-dollar acquisition as leverage on their multi-billion-dollar compute spend.

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.

In the AI arms race, a $10 billion investment from a trillion-dollar company is seen as table stakes. This sum is framed as the cost to secure a handful of top engineers, highlighting the massive decoupling of capital from traditional value perception in the tech industry.

In the hyper-competitive AI talent market, companies like OpenAI are dropping the standard one-year vesting cliff. With equity packages worth millions, top candidates are unwilling to risk getting nothing if they leave before 12 months, forcing a shift in compensation norms.

Don't view AI through a cost-cutting lens. If AI makes a single software developer 10x more productive—generating $5M in value instead of $500k—the rational business decision is to hire more developers to scale that value creation, not fewer.

Traditional hourly billing for engineers is obsolete when AI creates 10x productivity. 10X compensates engineers based on output (story points), aligning incentives with speed and efficiency. This model allows top engineers to potentially earn over a million dollars in cash compensation annually.

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.

The idea that AI will enable billion-dollar companies with tiny teams is a myth. Increased productivity from AI raises the competitive bar and opens up more opportunities, compelling ambitious companies to hire more people to build more product and win.

After reportedly turning down a $1.5B offer from Meta to stay at his startup Thinking Machines, Andrew Tulloch was allegedly lured back with a $3.5B package. This demonstrates the hyper-inflated and rapidly escalating cost of acquiring top-tier AI talent, where even principled "missionaries" have a mercenary price.