Google's DeepMind accused of paying AI staff to do nothing - as long as they don't work elsewhere

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 582   +13
Staff
In a nutshell: Google's DeepMind is enforcing strict noncompete clauses and extended notice periods to limit its U.K.-based AI talent from joining competitors, a tactic that underscores the fierce competition for skilled professionals in the field. The measure has drawn criticism from former employees and industry insiders who argue they stifle innovation and limit career mobility in the sector.

Nando de Freitas, a former DeepMind director now serving as Vice President of AI at Microsoft, recently took to social media platform X to voice his concerns. He alleged that Google DeepMind's employment contracts can effectively sideline AI developers for up to a year, preventing them from joining competitors. "Every week one of you reaches out to me in despair to ask me how to escape your notice periods and noncompetes," de Freitas wrote, addressing current DeepMind employees. He urged workers to avoid signing such agreements, calling them an "abuse of power."

De Freitas's remarks highlight the growing challenges AI professionals face as they navigate restrictive contracts in a time of rapid industry expansion. While US states like California have banned noncompete clauses, these agreements remain enforceable in the United Kingdom, where DeepMind is headquartered. Under UK law, noncompetes are deemed valid if they are considered reasonable to protect an employer's legitimate business interests.

According to former DeepMind employees who spoke anonymously with Business Insider, the company tailors the length of noncompete clauses based on an employee's seniority and role. Individual contributors working on high-profile projects like Google's Gemini AI models often face six-month restrictions, while senior researchers may be bound by yearlong agreements. During this period, some employees are placed on "garden leave," receiving full pay but barred from working elsewhere.

Google defends its use of noncompetes as standard practice. "Our employment contracts are in line with market standards," a spokesperson told Business Insider. "Given the sensitive nature of our work, we use noncompetes selectively to protect our legitimate interests."

However, critics argue that these clauses are increasingly out of step with the fast-paced nature of AI development. "Who wants to sign you for starting in a year? That's forever in AI," said one former DeepMind employee.

The impact of these clauses on careers is so significant that some DeepMind employees have contemplated relocating to jurisdictions like California, where such agreements are unenforceable. Others lament missed opportunities at startups unwilling to wait months for new hires to become available.

De Freitas's public critique underscores the broader tension within the tech industry as companies vie for top-tier talent. He urged discontented employees to raise their concerns with DeepMind leaders such as CTO Koray Kavukcuoglu and senior research director Douglas Eck, whom he described as sympathetic to their plight. Ultimately, he stressed that workers should scrutinize contracts before signing away their freedom to move between employers.

The controversy surrounding noncompetes reflects a shifting dynamic in the tech industry. In previous decades, even those working on high-value systems could more easily transition between roles without facing such barriers. Now, as AI becomes a cornerstone of global innovation, companies are adopting measures more commonly associated with hedge funds – another fiercely competitive sector known for aggressive contractual terms.

For many in the field, the stakes could not be higher. "AI is interesting," remarked one former Google employee. "It seems to be the first time in my career that you have this insane race, like a space race. People really feel like being six months ahead or a year ahead could make all the difference."

Permalink to story:

 
Accused ???

Is it illegal to pay people to do nothing?
Wasn't the so called UBI exactly that?

If it's OK for Google and it's OK for the respective employee, then ... it's OK, period ... and nobody else's business.
Google can easily hide what they're doing by asking people to do irrelevant stuff that goes nowhere and nobody uses. It's weird though, looks like there's nothing left to do, which is obviously not the case.
 
Nothing new.

Not sure on USA law, but as work is consider a basic human right in NZ. For a restrain of trade agreement to be binding by law it has to be very specific and reasonable - Nature of business, geographical area , time limit etc

Again deep pockets to litigate

Most corruption you see on the streets in my travels is for people NOT to do their job - not to search my bags, give me a ticket , test the water coming from my factory etc
Far easier to explain away - we can't stop and search everyone - if contraband found , bribe goes up massively as know "collusion"
 
Back