During tech gold rushes like AI, the most skilled engineers ("level 100 players") are drawn to lucrative but less impactful ventures. This creates a significant opportunity cost, as their talents are diverted from society's most pressing challenges, like semiconductor fabrication.
Related Insights
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.
AI lowers the barrier to entry, flooding the market with "whiteboard founded" companies tackling low-hanging fruit. This creates a highly competitive, consensus-driven environment that is the opposite of a "good quest." The real challenge is finding meaningful problems.
The process of struggling with and solving hard problems is what builds engineering skill. Constantly available AI assistants act like a "slot machine for answers," removing this productive struggle. This encourages "vibe coding" and may prevent engineers from developing deep problem-solving expertise.
AI coding assistants won't make fundamental skills obsolete. Instead, they act as a force multiplier that separates engineers. Great engineers use AI to become exceptional by augmenting their deep understanding, while mediocre engineers who rely on it blindly will fall further behind.
Experience alone no longer determines engineering productivity. An engineer's value is now a function of their experience plus their fluency with AI tools. Experienced coders who haven't adapted are now less valuable than AI-native recent graduates, who are in high demand.
Most AI applications are designed to make white-collar work more productive or redundant (e.g., data collation). However, the most pressing labor shortages in advanced economies like the U.S. are in blue-collar fields like welding and electrical work, where current AI has little impact and is not being focused.
Job seekers use AI to generate resumes en masse, forcing employers to use AI filters to manage the volume. This creates a vicious cycle where more AI is needed to beat the filters, resulting in a "low-hire, low-fire" equilibrium. While activity seems high, actual hiring has stalled, masking a significant economic disruption.
AI disproportionately benefits top performers, who use it to amplify their output significantly. This creates a widening skills and productivity gap, leading to workplace tension as "A-players" can increasingly perform tasks previously done by their less-motivated colleagues, which could cause resentment and organizational challenges.
Contrary to the belief that distribution is the new moat, the crucial differentiator in AI is talent. Building a truly exceptional AI product is incredibly nuanced and complex, requiring a rare skill set. The scarcity of people who can build off models in an intelligent, tasteful way is the real technological moat, not just access to data or customers.
