At DeepMind, a promise not to enforce a clause isn’t the same as crossing it out

Imagine leaving a job with an old promise in writing and a newer assurance that the company won’t hold you to it. Which one do you show your lawyer? At Google DeepMind, some British researchers want that question settled. The Washington Post, which reviewed a contract, reports that some older terms restrict criticism even after employment ends. Google told the paper it dropped the post-employment restriction for new hires and does not enforce it against former staff. Neither point rewrites the copy someone signed years ago. People do speak out. On October 20, engineer Sofia Liguori published her own explanation for leaving DeepMind over military applications of AI. And in a separate Guardian interview, former Google researcher Geoffrey Hinton described both the prospect of substantial benefits and the possibility of a serious disruption to electricity or finance. That is his judgment about what could happen. It isn’t evidence that such a disruption occurred, that he signed the clause, or that he was speaking for the employees who challenged it. There’s also a difference between reporting suspected wrongdoing and saying that a legal technology is heading somewhere dangerous. Google’s published code prohibits retaliation for reporting a possible violation of company rules or law. UK whistleblowing protections have defined conditions. A scientist questioning a future use should not have to guess whether anyone will treat that disagreement as a reportable violation. A practical compromise would protect trade secrets while giving current and former researchers a written route to an independent reviewer. That reviewer need not agree with the warning for the route to be worth having.