A little additional context, as this is getting attention: (1) These clauses are pretty common in tech/corporate contexts, to the extent that HR for big firms like Google can be really taken by surprise if people make a fuss about them. (2) They're buried in very long contracts - several people I spoke to only discovered they were under in perpetuity non-disparagement after I encouraged them to go back to their contracts and go keyword searching. (3) Freedom to express concerns is critical in a fast-moving, ethically charged area like AI risk. DM leadership is aware of this. It has been a core tenet of much of the governance material produced this decade (e.g. see arxiv.org/abs/2004.07213). (4) The autonomous weapons/surveillance thing is particularly galling in a DeepMind context. Hassabis and co profited a LOT over the years from stating principles against these uses clearly. It gained them academic and civil society support*, and staff who have contributed a lot to their success joined and stayed in part because of those principles. As the BBC article says, it's this old guard who are most upset about what is happening. Hassabis is of course welcome to change his principles (last year he said 'the world is becoming a more dangerous place') but to silence those who still hold to DeepMind's original principles, or punish those who speak up (and both these have been happening) is IMO abhorrent. (5) It's unclear how strictly enforced this all is. For current employees, there is clearly *robust* comms oversight and message control. For ex-employees, it seems much laxer. But the uncertainty is enough for it to have a chilling effect. If you were just out from your role at GDM and looking for your next role, would you really want the risk of dealing with Google's giant legal team, or finding yourself industry-blackballed in some way? (6) OpenAI and Anthropic both had clauses like these, and removed them in the face of public and employee pressure. It'll be a harder task with GDM, as it's a much bigger and more opaque organisation. But it's worth making our feelings known - the stakes are too high.

Important, and I'm glad this is finally public. Google DeepMind researchers are under in perpetuity non-disparagement clauses forbidding them from ever speaking critically of the company. I'd already confirmed this with multiple people. Yes, some ex-employees have spoken out nonetheless. But it has also discouraged others from doing so. And yes, it most certainly has a chilling effect with regards to discussions on safety and risk. Others have written compellingly about how important the ability to speak freely and critically is, especially on topics like safety and risk. And what a testament to the research employee community's coordination and hard-won bargaining power it has been to get there at other companies. GDM burn that commons by having this. And everyone who signs burns that commons too. Let's get it changed.