The AI talent war isn't just about high salaries. It's about the hidden costs of recruiting, onboarding, and the productivity drag from a revolving door of engineers. I'll show you how to calculate the true cost and how to fix it.
Why Most Approaches Fail
Many common approaches to AI talent are flawed at the root.
The root cause is usually one of three things:
Copying what big companies do without understanding why they do it. What works for Google doesn't work for a 10-person startup.
Over-engineering the solution when a simple approach would work better. I've seen teams spend six months building something that could have been done in two weeks.
Ignoring the human element. Technology is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it is where the real challenge lives.
The Framework That Actually Works
Here is a simple framework for evaluating AI talent. It's not complicated, but it requires discipline.
Step 1: timing is everything in this game
This is where most people go wrong. They skip this step entirely and jump straight to execution. Don't do that.
Step 2: you need to move fast and break things
Once you have the foundation right, this becomes much easier. I've watched founders struggle with this for months when the answer was staring them in the face.
Step 3: Iterate relentlessly
Nothing works perfectly the first time. The companies that get AI talent right treat it as an ongoing process, not a one-time project.
What I Tell Founders
Before deciding anything about AI talent, start with three questions:
What's your timeline? Because the right approach for a company with 6 months of runway is very different from one with 3 years.
What have you already tried? Most founders have tried something. Understanding what didn't work is often more valuable than knowing what might.
Who on your team owns this? If the answer is "everyone" or "no one," that's your first problem to solve.
These questions seem simple but they reveal a lot about where a company actually stands.
This connects to broader themes around AI talent wars, AI market sizing, AI pitch decks, AI exit strategies, AI due diligence that I've been thinking about a lot lately.
The Bottom Line
None of this is rocket science. But it does require intentionality, consistency, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.
If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: start now, start small, and iterate. The founders who win at AI talent aren't the ones with the best strategy on paper. They're the ones who execute, learn, and adapt faster than everyone else.
Companies that take AI talent seriously tend to pull ahead of the ones that don't.
If you're working on something interesting in this space, I'd love to hear about it. Drop me a line.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q:How can I apply this thinking to my own situation?
Start by identifying the core principle behind the opinion, not the specific example. Then ask yourself: does this principle apply to my context? If yes, test it in a small, low-risk way before going all in.
Q:What experience informs this perspective?
This perspective comes from over a decade of building companies in Silicon Valley, two successful exits (RemoteTeam to Gusto, MovieLaLa to Gfycat), and investing in 234 startups including Anthropic, OpenAI, and Scale AI. I write about what I've lived.
Q:What's the most common pushback you get on this?
People often push back by citing exceptions or edge cases. And they're usually right that exceptions exist. But building a strategy around exceptions rather than patterns is a losing game for most founders.