Google Is Allegedly Paying Top AI Researchers to Just Sit Around and Not Work for the Competition

Google has one weird trick to hoard its artificial intelligence talent from poachers — paying them to not work at all.

Google apparently has one weird trick to hoard its talent from poachers: paying them to not work.

As Business Insider reports, some United Kingdom-based employees at Google's DeepMind AI lab are paid to do nothing for six months — or, in fewer cases, up to a year — after they quit their jobs.

Known as "garden leave," this type of cushy clause is the luckier stepsister to so-called "noncompete" agreements, which prohibit employees and contractors from working with a competitor for a designated period of time after they depart an employer. Ostensibly meant to prevent aggressive poaching, these sorts of clauses also bar outgoing employees from working with competitors.

Often deployed in tandem with noncompetes, garden leave agreements are more prevalent in the UK than across the pond in the United States, where according to the Horton Group law firm, such clauses are generally reserved for "highly-paid executives."

Though it seems like a pretty good gig — or lack thereof — if you can get it, employees at DeepMind's London HQ told BI that garden leave and noncompetes stymie their ability to lock down meaningful work after they leave the lab.

While noncompetes are increasingly a nonstarter in the United States amid growing legislative pushes to make them unenforceable, they're perfectly legal and quite commonplace in the UK so long as a company explicitly states the business interests they're protecting.

Like DeepMind's generous garden leave period, noncompete clauses typically last between six months and a year — but instead of getting paid to garden, per the former's logic, ex-employees just can't work for competitors for that length of time without risking backlash from Google's army of lawyers.

Because noncompetes are often signed alongside non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), we don't know exactly what DeepMind considers a "competitor" — but whatever its contracts stipulate, it's clearly bothersome enough to get its former staffers to speak out.

"Who wants to sign you for starting in a year?" one ex-DeepMind-er told BI. "That's forever in AI."

In an X post from the end of March, Nando de Freitas, a London-based former DeepMind director who now works at Microsoft offered a brash piece of advice: that people should not sign noncompetes at all.

"Above all don’t sign these contracts," de Freitas wrote. "No American corporation should have that much power, especially in Europe. It’s abuse of power, which does not justify any end."

It's not a bad bit of counsel, to be sure — but as with any other company, it's easy to imagine DeepMind simply choosing not to hire experts if they refuse to sign.

More on the world of AI: Trump's Tariffs Are a Bruising Defeat for the AI Industry

The post Google Is Allegedly Paying Top AI Researchers to Just Sit Around and Not Work for the Competition appeared first on Futurism.

Read more:
Google Is Allegedly Paying Top AI Researchers to Just Sit Around and Not Work for the Competition

Trump Tariffs Show Signs of Being Written by AI

There seem to be signs that president Donald Trump's befuddling tariff measures were cooked up by an AI chatbot.

President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on most goods imported into the US yesterday, affecting over 100 countries — including uninhabited territories in the middle of the ocean.

It's a baffling decision that's expected to wreak havoc on the international economy, heightening existing concerns over an imminent recession.

Worse, as Cointelegraph reports, there seem to be signs that the befuddling measures were cooked up by an AI chatbot.

Basically, Trump's tariff rates divide the trade deficit between the US and a given country by the value of the total goods imported from it, and then divide the result by two.

As observers quickly noticed, chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT were prone to duplicating that calculation, suggesting that lethargic administration officials might have turned to the tech to devise the plan.

"What would be an easy way to calculate the tariffs that should be imposed on other countries so that the US is on even playing fields when it comes to trade deficit. Set a minimum of ten percent," crypto trader Jordan "Cobie" Fish asked ChatGPT.

The AI tool happily obliged, coming up with a strikingly similar formulation, dividing the trade deficit by total imports to calculate the tariff rate.

However, even the chatbot warned that doing so wouldn't make much sense.

"This method ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade — such as elasticities, retaliatory measures, and supply chain nuances — but it provides a blunt, proportional rule to 'level the playing field,'" ChatGPT wrote.

"Confirmed, ChatGPT..." Journal of Public Economics editor Wojtek Kopczuk tweeted. "Exactly what the dumbest kid in the class would do, without edits."

A breakdown of which country got hit hard and which was spared highlights how the new tariff rates largely ignore the greater international trade context.

"I suspect his is also why countries like Iran, which we basically do not trade with, gets off so easily," another user replied. "No trade = no trade deficit!"

It's not just ChatGPT. Elon Musk's AI chatbot Grok gave a similar answer when given the same prompt, suggesting adjusting tariff rates "based on deficit size."

Again, Grok warned about such a plan being largely illogical — and potentially self-defeating.

"This method assumes tariffs directly reduce imports by raising prices, but in reality, factors like demand elasticity, currency exchange rates, and global supply chains complicate the outcome," Grok wrote. "It also risks retaliation or higher costs for US consumers."

"For a truly 'even playing field,' you’d need to consider production costs, subsidies, and labor standards abroad — data that’s harder to quantify simply," the chatbot added.

Anthropic's Claude AI chatbot made a similar suggestion, adding the same caveats.

Could the pattern be a coincidence? Sure. But the White House has already been accused of using AI to generate sloppily-written executive orders, which bore hallmarks of AI tools like ChatGPT.

The administration has also made a big deal of its use of AI for governing, with Elon Musk's DOGE crowing about its use of the tech and the General Services Administration launching a chatbot last month designed to support staff at the agency.

The bottom line, though? AI or not, economists are warning that the tariffs are ill-advised and likely to devastate the global economy. The stock market is already taking a hammering this morning.

"There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly," London School of Economics professor Thomas Sampson told the BBC.

More on tariffs: Trump's Tariffs Are Wreaking Havoc on the AI Industry He Claims to Support

The post Trump Tariffs Show Signs of Being Written by AI appeared first on Futurism.

Read the original here:
Trump Tariffs Show Signs of Being Written by AI