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.
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.
The 30-40% pay premium for AI PMs isn't just because "AI is hot." It's rooted in the scarcity of their specialized skillset, similar to how analytics PMs with statistics backgrounds are paid more. Companies are paying for demonstrated experience with AI tooling and technical fluency, which is rare.
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.
Despite general AI hype, the demand for AI Product Managers (AIPMs) is real, reflected in median compensation packages that are now competitive with top-tier software engineering roles in major tech hubs like the Bay Area.
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 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.
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.
The CEO of ElevenLabs recounts a negotiation where a research candidate wanted to maximize their cash compensation over three years. Their rationale: they believed AGI would arrive within that timeframe, rendering their own highly specialized job—and potentially all human jobs—obsolete.
