Over 200 employees at Google DeepMind have signed an open letter urging the company to end its contracts with military organizations. According to Time Magazine, the letter, dated May 16, 2024, raises concerns that DeepMind’s AI technology might be used in warfare, potentially violating Google’s own principles against harmful AI applications. The employees specifically highlight Google’s defense contract with the Israeli military, Project Nimbus, and concerns about AI being used for mass surveillance in Gaza. They stress that this involvement undermines Google’s commitment to ethical AI and responsible practices.
When Google acquired DeepMind in 2014, it promised not to use its technology for military or surveillance purposes. However, as DeepMind became more integrated with Google’s operations, the line between commercial and military applications has blurred, causing internal conflict.
“Any involvement with military and weapon manufacturing impacts our position as leaders in ethical and responsible AI and goes against our mission statement and stated AI Principles,” the letter that circulated inside Google DeepMind says.
According to Time, DeepMind employees have called on Google leadership to investigate claims that Google Cloud services are being used by militaries and weapons manufacturers. They urge the company to terminate military access to DeepMind’s AI technology and to establish a governance body to prevent future military use. Despite these concerns, Google has not provided a substantial response to the employees’ demands.
A Google spokesperson defended the company’s practices, emphasizing that their AI development complies with principles ensuring responsible technology use. This statement comes amid internal dissent at DeepMind, where employees have protested against the company’s involvement in military projects like Project Nimbus. Earlier this year, these protests led to the dismissal of dozens of employees. Despite the ongoing concerns from staff, Google has maintained its stance on continuing the controversial contracts.
