The funny thing about this age of AI is that there are barely any stars who graduated from old software into this new AI world.

This thought came to me when I was reading Satya Nadella’s recent post that, at the moment of writing, had been seen by 56 million people. It’s a crucially important post, but maybe not for what’s visible on the surface. Though even that is important. It has many layers, and they may be seen better from afar.

Satya talks about token capital and human capital. Token capital is the AI capability a firm builds and owns: its models, agents, traces, evals, workflow memory, internal loops. Human capital is the judgment, taste, relationships, context, and pattern recognition of its people. His whole argument is that the two should compound, that humans grow more valuable, not less, as the machines do.

And here you can see Satya the Warrior, who can crush your skull if he needs to (in a battle, of course), suddenly sit down on a stone and turn into The Thinker. He is at the edge.

Satya Nadella as a Warrior and as The Thinker

His company is enormous, dominant, the default choice for almost every enterprise on the planet. It has Azure, Office, GitHub, the OpenAI relationship, distribution that most companies can only dream about. And still, his core warriors, maybe even the whole company, are too stiff for the shape of this moment.

That opens up the current problem: human capital is really important, but seniority no longer translates cleanly into success. If you are a star at Microsoft, inside that particular corporate structure, you are limited by so many things. Incentives. Committees. Procurement logic. Internal kingdoms. The need to sound correct before you know what is true. In a sense, human capital becomes his burden, because it wastes token capital in the wrong way.

Who made the best current models? Bold, uncorporate people, both in the US and China. And if you think about Gemini, it’s Demis, who is Ender Wiggin, playing and fighting Google’s corporate game, and Jeff Dean, who, like Chuck Norris, just looks at the model until it starts converging. They succeed not because of Google but almost in spite of it. (If you read the book The Infinity Machine, you know how long it took to merge Google Brain and DeepMind, how much brain power it wasted).

Notice what these names have in common. They are not ladder creatures. They did not become useful because they mastered the internal language of quarterly planning. They are researchers, obsessives, game players, quants, builders. Liang Wenfeng ran a hedge fund before DeepSeek. Hassabis built games and studied the brain before he taught machines to play and imagine. They came in sideways. The corporate ladder did not make them; in many places it would have sanded them down.

That is the layer underneath Satya’s post. He says human and token capital compound, and he is right. But he is too polite, or too strategic, to say which human capital. Because the kind a big company manufactures best, the senior, reliable, politically fluent veteran who knows how to move a proposal through six committees, is almost exactly the kind that can waste token capital. That person optimizes the org chart, not the loss curve.

And the kind that actually moves the frontier, irreverent, allergic to permission, willing to be loudly wrong in public, is the kind a structure like Microsoft selects against and, eventually, pushes out.

So this is my question, for corporate America: under what conditions can they hold those people without domesticating or exhausting them, Or does the age of AI reward a shape that looks less like a company and more like a band, a lab, a small huddle of fanatics pointed at one problem with infinite compute behind them?

The answer is uncomfortable because Corporate America employs more than 70 million people inside large firms alone: firms with 500 or more employees account for roughly 54% of U.S. private-sector employment. The firms with the most human capital by the old scoreboard, the most veterans, the deepest benches, the proudest org charts, may be badly positioned, because every one of those assets is also a reason not to move.

And there is another thing that I didn’t see people talking about: senior human capital is often too slow, while junior human capital is not yet deep enough. So the firm gets trapped between slow knowledge and fast ignorance.

Satya knows this. That is why he is sitting on the stone. He is not admiring his human capital. He is staring at the possibility that his greatest asset and his heaviest anchor are the same people. And if that is true, the work of the next decade is not simply accumulating human capital or token capital. It is building a structure porous enough to let uncorporate people stay uncorporate while giving them corporate-scale compute, data, distribution, and responsibility.

To keep the Demises and the Jeff Deans from being either crushed or domesticated.

The companies that learn to be that porous will own the age. The ones that keep promoting their best ladder-climbers will keep wondering why their token capital runs in circles. It might be a beginning of change for the whole corporate world. The layoffs we see are part of that.

That’s what I want to leave you with: in the age of intelligence, the scarcest capital is neither the human nor the machine. It is the structure brave enough to hold both without flattening either.

If any of those thoughts resonate with you – share them across your social networks. Let’s keep the conversation going.