Dozens of Google DeepMind employees joined an internal discussion about a non-disparagement clause that staff say discourages them from speaking publicly about AI risks. Some compared the restriction to the dystopian surveillance state in George Orwell’s “1984.”
According to reporting by the Washington Post, the agreement has become a source of friction between workers and management at Google’s London-based AI lab. Many employees signed it as a condition of employment. Staff say they have information the public should hear, but worry that sharing their concerns could put them at odds with their employer.
“This technology is just really consequential and it’s also changing really fast,” one anonymous DeepMind staffer told the Post. “The public wants to know and deserves to know and often this is the only way that people find out about the harms and potential harms that are happening.”
Non-disparagement agreements restrict statements that a company considers negative or critical. The concern here isn’t just whether Google would win a legal dispute over an employee’s remarks. Workers describe a chilling effect: the clause alone can discourage people from speaking, keeping discussion of AI’s potential harms behind company doors.
Two DeepMind staffers told the Post about the employee-organized discussion group examining the clause’s implications. Dozens took part, with some openly criticizing the restriction through references to Orwell’s novel. Their objections reflect a divide over how freely employees should be able to discuss the technology they help build.
Whether Google’s leadership would actually invoke the agreement against staff remains uncertain. There are also questions about whether it could legally do so, particularly given UK whistleblowing protections. Those questions don’t establish that every public disclosure would be protected, or that the clause would be enforceable in every circumstance.
For employees raising objections, uncertainty about enforcement doesn’t remove the pressure. One DeepMind staffer told the Post that even “if it’s not enforceable,” the purpose of the attempted gag order is clear: “the reason is to basically intimidate people.”
