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.
Related Insights
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 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.
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.
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.
In the fierce competition for elite AI researchers, companies like OpenAI, Meta, and xAI are shortening or eliminating the standard one-year equity vesting cliff. This move reflects the immense leverage top talent holds, forcing companies to prioritize recruitment over traditional retention mechanisms by offering immediate equity access.
Andrej Karpathy asserts that the liquidity of employee stock options is the "dominant first order term" driving talent behavior at frontier AI labs. Poor liquidity, as allegedly seen at Anthropic, reduces employee churn as it makes it harder for talent to leave and fund new ventures.
The number of founders taking secondary liquidity after their seed round is twice as high as the 2021 peak. While this de-risks the journey for founders, there is almost no parallel liquidity offered to early employees, creating a growing divide in early-stage risk and reward.
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.
