Meta has physically and organizationally separated its new, high-paid AI researchers in 'TBD Labs' from its existing AI teams. By issuing separate access badges, Meta has created an internal caste system that prevents collaboration and is likely to cause significant morale problems and knowledge silos within its most critical division.
Related Insights
A strategic conflict is emerging at Meta: new AI leader Alexander Wang wants to build a frontier model to rival OpenAI, while longtime executives want his team to apply AI to immediately improve Facebook's core ad business. This creates a classic R&D vs. monetization dilemma at the highest levels.
To balance AI hype with reality, leaders should create two distinct teams. One focuses on generating measurable ROI this quarter using current AI capabilities. A separate "tiger team" incubates high-risk, experimental projects that operate at startup speed to prevent long-term disruption.
Companies like DeepMind, Meta, and SSI are using increasingly futuristic job titles like "Post-AGI Research" and "Safe Superintelligence Researcher." This isn't just semantics; it's a branding strategy to attract elite talent by framing their work as being on the absolute cutting edge, creating distinct sub-genres within the AI research community.
While many believe AI will primarily help average performers become great, LinkedIn's experience shows the opposite. Their top talent were the first and most effective adopters of new AI tools, using them to become even more productive. This suggests AI may amplify existing talent disparities.
A strategic rift has emerged at Meta. Long-time executives like Chris Cox want the new AI team to leverage Instagram and Facebook data to improve core ads and feeds. However, new AI leader Alexander Wang is pushing to prioritize building a frontier model to compete with OpenAI and Google first.
While traditionally creating cultural friction, separate innovation teams are now more viable thanks to AI. The ability to go from idea to prototype extremely fast and leanly allows a small team to explore the "next frontier" without derailing the core product org, provided clear handoff rules exist.
The current trend toward closed, proprietary AI systems is a misguided and ultimately ineffective strategy. Ideas and talent circulate regardless of corporate walls. True, defensible innovation is fostered by openness and the rapid exchange of research, not by secrecy.
Meta's strategy of poaching top AI talent and isolating them in a secretive, high-status lab created a predictable culture clash. By failing to account for the resentment from legacy employees, the company sparked internal conflict, demands for raises, and departures, demonstrating a classic management failure of prioritizing talent acquisition over cultural integration.
The "golden era" of big tech AI labs publishing open research is over. As firms realize the immense value of their proprietary models and talent, they are becoming as secretive as trading firms. The culture is shifting toward protecting IP, with top AI researchers even discussing non-competes, once a hallmark of finance.
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.
