On Friday, a Google executive responded to the internal discussion about the non-disparagement clause and said that the company would not enforce it for workers who had left the company.
“We’ve always encouraged an open dialogue about safety and responsibility,” a Google spokesperson said in an email Tuesday. “Recently, we’ve updated our terms for new hires, which included removing the post-termination aspect of non-disparagement clauses.”
The company does not enforce non-disparagement clauses after people leave Google, and it has dedicated, internal channels for workers to escalate concerns to top leaders, the spokesperson said.
Usual noise from a very very small but very very vocal minority of trouble makers who are trying to force their own views on everyone else and run to the press to try and feel important and try to make a mountain out of a 3 or 4 person molehill.
I've not heard anyone at all talking about this in the office. Perhaps everyone is thinking it or talking about it privately, but I've not heard any of it period.
They're getting ignored by management because they're the usual agitators and over-opinionated who everyone hates dealing with. It's not surprising these people end up getting fired or let go, because no one likes working with them and so they don't get on good projects and don't get good feedback in reviews etc because they piss everyone else off. Then of course when they are fired (or jump before they are pushed) they run right back to the press about how they were sacked for reason X when really it's because they're a fucking jerk.
If this sounds like you: http://go/no-jerks is old has never been more applicable. Don't be a jerk.
This workplace culture sounds toxic, but more importantly: given an array of numbers, can we partition it such that the each partition is a palindrome of a subsequent ? Asking for a friend who needs to pass a technical interview.
if you read the article it actually outlines that this is happening in the UK, where whistleblowers are legally protected if what they choose to blow the whistle on is _in the public interest_ so actually this comment does seem pretty spot on: They don't have anything beyond moral disagreements on what the company is working on (the article mentions military applications of AI), and are thus taking a moralistic standpoint on applications which are otherwise within the laws of the UK. Otherwise they would be able to (and would legally be protected) if they spoke out.
In my ongoing experience with Googlers nobody in Google is functionally worried about anything but keeping moving up the ladder and trying to be on the “retirement level money asap” pathway.
Ok, I'll say it.
The news is: "AI is not that powerful or functional".
Sure, can change some little things but not that much. And we are overspending on it.
I really don't understand how so many are so far detached from reality. Maybe AI hasn't revolutionized much of the physical world (yet), but its impacts to the digital world are profound, sweeping, and impossible to ignore.
Saying that "so many" are detached should make you think. I'm sure nobody says its not useful at all, just not THAT useful. It seems that most of the things its clearly better than a human, considering risks and real time saved, are in the end inconsequential.
I feel this is a common position from people who do not want to acknowledge that society and people's ways of life will profoundly change. It's a scary proposition so I don't blame anyone for it.
I used to think that it is very important to argue and convince people who are in denial so that they can e.g. prepare for it. But nowadays I have been thinking that being convinced of this scary proposition may also lead people to behave in destructive ways (also, I would like for us to spend less on AI, perhaps because it is so powerful), so maybe it's not so bad.
Even if it hits the wall today and no further progress toward general AI is made for decades, as the current technology is applied in more areas and expertise with it is gained it would still have enormous social and economic impacts over the next few decades.
I mean I'd wager even most people who utilize AI on a regular basis don't take time to ponder the implications if progress continues at the current rate.
People are far better at subconsciously processing the consequences of something than they appreciate, and the consequences of the AI wave being real are so insane people just clam up and back track to "it's obviously not happening".
If people actually did appreciate it the economy would collapse immediately long before we've adequately "replaced" it, so there is something to be said for temporary denial until people working on the actual consequences have got something semi viable to deal with them in place.
This is my expectation. “We are overspending on AI and we’re going to destroy the company and maybe the economy” is less sensational than the end of the world, but it seems much more realistic.
That or the usual moral problems with applications of the technology, as another commenter pointed out, particularly in military and policing. Bad, but not really a new revelation, unless they know of some particularly evil plans.
I get people who said things like that like year ago, but nowadays it's a laughable position. Solving millenium problem means nothing nowadays? Exponential increase in CVE is nothing?
There have been improvements, yes, but their best achievements still fall short. Their math solutions costed more than a school full of mathematicians, and are still being debated. The CVEs they find still need humans to reliably patch them. Nevertheless, I know they will keep improving.
There have been huge advances this year alone, and finally some productive results, but most of the things where AIs are used right now still are a net loss.
AGI can define goalposts that move every time A not-G I achieves a new milestone. That's fine. No matter what acronym you use to define it, artificial intelligence is objectively augmenting humans at the very edge of technology and science.
I’m mostly bearish on AI, but this is flat wrong. The vast majority of CVEs that have been discovered with AI assistance were in code written long before AIs arrived on the scene.
from TFA, I liked seeing this, considering how influential Google HR policy choices are across the valley and beyond: “Recently, we’ve updated our terms for new hires, which included removing the post-termination aspect of non-disparagement clauses.”
Haven't we already heard the worst of it? If you let a swarm of agents on the loose with a goal, they will get to all kind of nefarious activity in pursuit of that goal. What could possibly be worse than that?
I think there was some example of DeepMind models doing it, but under the control of a third party pen tester and the models stopped themselves.
Everyone hates on Google but they seem fairly competent at infra stuff. I don't think we've heard of any google-controlled (not third party using a Google model) felonies like we have from OpenAI and Anthropic?
If that’s the reality, you would think that employees would be willing to break an NDA for it. “We’re all going to die, but I really need my bonus this year” seems like a parody rather than a real strongly held position.
If anything this points to a more moderate (but still bad) worry among the employees.
I suppose there may be a bit of a prisoner's dilemma to it. Single voices can be discredited. It would take a coordinated disclosure to actually make the message stick.
Ok, but maybe an employee isn't 100% sure that this will happen. They then have to weigh letting the world know about a risk against the certainty that their career will be damaged.
Vague fears aren’t really that concerning, doomerism is everywhere on literally every topic these days. And humans have quite a long history of it, at least as old as the millenarian cults of 1000 AD.
If someone’s not even willing to stake their job on it, I don’t see why I’d be concerned. (And until they do, we’re just speculating about what they may or may not even say.)
That's sci-fi. They cannot "recursively improve". There is no magic to LLMs. An agent swarm can increase it's thinking power by increasing the number of agents, the thinking time and by changing the base model to a more powerful one. So at worst they can assign themselves more compute or hijack another agent swarm based on a more powerful model.
Sorry bro, we live in a sci-fi world. I don't know what you think recursive improvement is, but we've been doing it for some time with models making synthetic data models and using it to train the next model. This is being done inside the labs intentionally to avoid as many employees and humans in post training. Works very well for things like math and cyber-sec.
> I don't know what you think recursive improvement is
The ability for a model to improve itself over time without outside intervention. As yet, no models yet have this capability, and LLMs specifically what with how they are constructed, are not likely to ever have it. They are frozen in carbonite at the time of their training.
That's not to say they can't use skills to appear somewhat worldly, things like searching the internet and what have you, but if you ask a model to strictly stick to data in it's training, it will do that and it will be stuck in whatever time in which it was built.
Energy is conserved, gravity exists, and LLMs aren't intelligent.
LLMs today are improved by experiments that assay their performance, changes to architecture, pretraining, and post-training. None of those steps necessarily require humans. Welcome to your sci fi future.
The implicit understanding of recursive improvement is that there is some step change increase in capability that only a superior intelligence will be able to achieve.
A model being able to train a bigger model with marginally better capabilities is not what the hype was about.
Just, Devil's Advocate, but what would be the benefit of your career if all humans (or even just a few billions of humans) are going to die?
I think it's reasonable to assume that if it's not worth breaking the NDA, it's likely not an existential threat for the vast majority of humanity.
Now, does that mean that people who currently work upper-middle class knowledge work jobs aren't in for an exceedingly harsh economic reality check? Absolutely not.
But that's not really as serious as an existential threat to humanity.
I doubt you are asking in good faith, because I suspect a good faith interlocutor would have worked this out on their own, but I'll proceed anyway.
On the one hand, you've potentially got an indeterminate number of future comfortable years based on a subjective assessment of how long you think it takes catastrophe to materialize, with the downside that you can't warn anyone and so no one will stop the coming catastrophe.
On the other hand you've got the immediate assurance of your current career being gone and high likelihood that you'll struggle financially as a result, with the upside that you can provide a warning to the public that they will almost certainly ignore and catastrophe comes anyway.
Given the risk/reward assessment of those two options, what do you pick?
Then share the stories where you faced such a situation and acted on it in a way that had a negative impact on you personally but brought a greater good
Look what happened to many people who broke NDAs or helped to do so. Snowden is stuck in Russia. Assange got holed up in an embassy for years. Sarah Wynn-Williams, the Facebook/Meta whistleblower, got an insane court order against her [1].
Theoretically, retaliating against whistleblowers is seriously illegal stuff. But in practice these regulations are seldom enforced. And even if your (former) employer does not retaliate openly, there might still be "invisible" retaliation, or the risk of other large employers just blacklisting you by default.
Breaking a Google NDA carries substantially less risk than leaking classified information, I imagine. And I would expect that someone exposing true existential risk would receive plenty of support in the face of civil suits. In any case, being more afraid of the courts than the end of humanity (if that’s what they want to leak) surely calibrates how strong their belief must be.
If it's juicy enough presumably they could be an anonymous source for some journo. Which would still be breaking the NDA but good luck getting anywhere with that.
Why would I display a modicum of good faith and grace when google has actively, at every chance, shown that they don't act in good faith. Hell today they announced if school districts turn off Google's ai for students they won't let them use google search either.
What if we displayed a modicum of truth and stopped pretending that Google employees don’t work there for the money? That is faithful and gracious to reality.
For who and for what? When did Google engineers demonstrate faith and grace? When they deprecated Manifest v2 so they could strengthen their advertising monopoly? Or when they ensured the death of XSLT to ensure everyone was forced to use JS for simple templating features? These are just the tip of the iceberg, should I keep trying to find other good faith and grace examples?
May I ask? Why should I show faith and grace to the people actively involved in turning our society into a Big Brother program? People who work with the DoD to build war machines? Directly or indirectly involved, they either know what they’re doing or choose to look the other way, for money.
Please enlighten me, what is the faith and grace approach I should be stating?
can't weigh in on that; i don't think any of this stuff makes sense as astroturf. but if a news story exists, it certainly could have been planted by the company being described as having terrifyingly powerful unreleased tech.
Usual noise from a very very small but very very vocal minority of trouble makers who are trying to force their own views on everyone else and run to the press to try and feel important and try to make a mountain out of a 3 or 4 person molehill.
I've not heard anyone at all talking about this in the office. Perhaps everyone is thinking it or talking about it privately, but I've not heard any of it period.
They're getting ignored by management because they're the usual agitators and over-opinionated who everyone hates dealing with. It's not surprising these people end up getting fired or let go, because no one likes working with them and so they don't get on good projects and don't get good feedback in reviews etc because they piss everyone else off. Then of course when they are fired (or jump before they are pushed) they run right back to the press about how they were sacked for reason X when really it's because they're a fucking jerk.
If this sounds like you: http://go/no-jerks is old has never been more applicable. Don't be a jerk.
You don’t hear from people because they are afraid of consequences given their contracts.
Some people value truth over that. Annoying,eh?
What part of the post was ultra-nationalistic?
Very close in feel to what the DoD used to be in the early 2010s
I used to think that it is very important to argue and convince people who are in denial so that they can e.g. prepare for it. But nowadays I have been thinking that being convinced of this scary proposition may also lead people to behave in destructive ways (also, I would like for us to spend less on AI, perhaps because it is so powerful), so maybe it's not so bad.
If people actually did appreciate it the economy would collapse immediately long before we've adequately "replaced" it, so there is something to be said for temporary denial until people working on the actual consequences have got something semi viable to deal with them in place.
You will need to explain that one. Becauase if economy colapses before the singularity, there will be no singularity.
There will be no datacenters, no ai, none of that super expensive stuff dependent on debt and disposable money.
That or the usual moral problems with applications of the technology, as another commenter pointed out, particularly in military and policing. Bad, but not really a new revelation, unless they know of some particularly evil plans.
There have been huge advances this year alone, and finally some productive results, but most of the things where AIs are used right now still are a net loss.
AGI can define goalposts that move every time A not-G I achieves a new milestone. That's fine. No matter what acronym you use to define it, artificial intelligence is objectively augmenting humans at the very edge of technology and science.
AI solving the problem it created? Woaow, the future is now!
The article is just about them asking for changing the wording of contracts, not some super secret stuff they're dying to say and really can't.
Without the paywall: https://archive.is/fKI3D
I think there was some example of DeepMind models doing it, but under the control of a third party pen tester and the models stopped themselves.
Everyone hates on Google but they seem fairly competent at infra stuff. I don't think we've heard of any google-controlled (not third party using a Google model) felonies like we have from OpenAI and Anthropic?
Perhaps this is why we have not heard though!
If anything this points to a more moderate (but still bad) worry among the employees.
We have been living in a parody for some time now, so it feels normal.
If someone’s not even willing to stake their job on it, I don’t see why I’d be concerned. (And until they do, we’re just speculating about what they may or may not even say.)
Is probably the best description of the state of engineering today
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50355251
The ability for a model to improve itself over time without outside intervention. As yet, no models yet have this capability, and LLMs specifically what with how they are constructed, are not likely to ever have it. They are frozen in carbonite at the time of their training.
That's not to say they can't use skills to appear somewhat worldly, things like searching the internet and what have you, but if you ask a model to strictly stick to data in it's training, it will do that and it will be stuck in whatever time in which it was built.
Energy is conserved, gravity exists, and LLMs aren't intelligent.
A model being able to train a bigger model with marginally better capabilities is not what the hype was about.
I think it's reasonable to assume that if it's not worth breaking the NDA, it's likely not an existential threat for the vast majority of humanity.
Now, does that mean that people who currently work upper-middle class knowledge work jobs aren't in for an exceedingly harsh economic reality check? Absolutely not.
But that's not really as serious as an existential threat to humanity.
On the one hand, you've potentially got an indeterminate number of future comfortable years based on a subjective assessment of how long you think it takes catastrophe to materialize, with the downside that you can't warn anyone and so no one will stop the coming catastrophe.
On the other hand you've got the immediate assurance of your current career being gone and high likelihood that you'll struggle financially as a result, with the upside that you can provide a warning to the public that they will almost certainly ignore and catastrophe comes anyway.
Given the risk/reward assessment of those two options, what do you pick?
Listen, I understand that, owing very likely to our differing backgrounds, you and I think differently.
Where threats are concerned, I'm a simple soldier and as such I see things simply.
I would raise the alarm without a second thought. I honestly don't know how anyone could reasonably believe they would have any other option?
Theoretically, retaliating against whistleblowers is seriously illegal stuff. But in practice these regulations are seldom enforced. And even if your (former) employer does not retaliate openly, there might still be "invisible" retaliation, or the risk of other large employers just blacklisting you by default.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy42xgeq9vpo
May I ask? Why should I show faith and grace to the people actively involved in turning our society into a Big Brother program? People who work with the DoD to build war machines? Directly or indirectly involved, they either know what they’re doing or choose to look the other way, for money.
Please enlighten me, what is the faith and grace approach I should be stating?
1. Full disclosure. 2. Run for your life. 3. Live in exile.
2. sideload Signal
3. find a verified reporter on Bluesky, etc. with public Signal contact info
4. destroy phone thoroughly afterwards, not just screen but chips
If they want to do that free of consequences, tough luck.