<\/p>\n
Sofia Liguori,<\/span> a research engineer working at DeepMind, resigned in protest this week from Google\u2019s pioneering artificial intelligence laboratory. Unlike a wave of other AI researchers who have quit<\/a> over fears<\/a> AI might someday turn against humanity, Liguori stepped down over concern about her employer\u2019s current practices.<\/p>\n Disenchanted and disturbed by Google\u2019s military contracts with the U.S. and Israel, Liguori says she could no longer stand working at a company that was going to help kill people or help build technology that \u201cautomatically makes it easier to escalate the brutality of war.\u201d<\/p>\n Liguori joined DeepMind in 2023 and began working on AI systems aimed at more efficiently routing power through the electrical grid, a peacetime engineering problem. But as she learned of Google\u2019s Project Nimbus contract<\/a>, which furnishes Israel\u2019s military and top weapons manufacturers with a suite of advanced<\/a> artificial intelligence tools, she began to question her role in the company, and the company\u2019s role in the world<\/a>. The day after Google announced its classified military AI contract with the Pentagon in April, Liguori staged a personal sick-out, using a combination of sick leave and holiday time off to cease her work.<\/p>\n In a letter<\/a> she sent internally informing DeepMind and her colleagues of her resignation, Liguori urged them to \u201cstay human\u201d in the face of military work. \u201cI no longer believe that our technology will have a net positive impact on society. I think there\u2019s a fantasy world where AI can help decarbonize grids, cut waste, protect ecosystems, and benefit humanity<\/em>,\u201d she wrote. \u201cBut it\u2019s not this world, and it\u2019s not this type<\/em> of general purpose AI we are racing to develop. Racing to deploy agentic AI in this<\/em> society and historical moment is a terrible idea, and will definitely be a net evil.\u201d<\/p>\n The Intercept spoke to Liguori, an Italian national living in London, where DeepMind is headquartered, about how she came to view her employer as dangerously powerful. During a series of interviews by phone and via text, which have been edited and condensed for length and clarity, she explained her moral opposition to military work, the role of unionization in dissent, and what hope engineers and scientists might have for influencing their companies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What was it about DeepMind that made you want to work there?<\/strong><\/p>\n I had a high opinion of DeepMind; it was a dream company. It had this aura of being a research-oriented place where you could sit close not just to computer scientists, but real scientists and researchers and people with backgrounds in biology, in physics, in mathematics, in ecology, in anthropology.<\/p>\n You joined in 2023, by which point the company had already been involved in Project Nimbus. Were you aware of that project at the time?<\/strong><\/p>\n Not really. The first year when I joined, I was very new and very isolated in my team. Google DeepMind is a huge company and if you\u2019re not in the right channels, you end up being very siloed. I didn\u2019t know about Project Nimbus, but when the Gaza war escalated, I discovered it. I immediately looked for some internal resistance movement to join, but I didn\u2019t find anything.<\/p>\n I discovered [Google employee advocacy group] No Tech for Apartheid<\/a>, but I thought it was mainly a U.S. organization. I didn\u2019t know how to connect with colleagues that share concerns, so the only thing that I did was buy a Palestine hoodie and go to the office with that.<\/p>\n In the summer of 2024, I went on maternity leave because my daughter was born, and during maternity leave I was watching news from Gaza every day. I was really suffering experiencing maternity and watching a livestreamed genocide, and every time I was thinking of my company\u2019s complicity in that. I thought about not coming back to work at all.<\/p>\n When I was due to come back, I met a colleague that had basically taken my role in my team before maternity leave, and they were actually leaving for ethical reasons. They put me in contact with the union movement and No Tech for Apartheid. And so I found other colleagues fighting against this.<\/p>\n How and when did you learn of the company\u2019s contracts with the U.S. military?<\/strong><\/p>\n By the time they started engaging with the U.S. Department of War, [Editor\u2019s note: July 2025<\/em>] I was already involved in activism. By this winter we saw the GenAI.mil contract<\/a> materializing, and for me, this was a very clear indication of the company\u2019s intentions. At the same time Google ramped up the security level authorization for Cloud: IL6<\/a>, which is the level required to handle classified workloads.<\/p>\n The combination of the two \u2014 signing this non-classified deal with the Department of War, and ramping up security level \u2014 really meant that we wanted to use AI for war, on the battlefield. Even if the internal narrative was, \u201cNo, don\u2019t worry, it\u2019s just for administrative purposes, just to process documents.\u201d<\/p>\n What was happening internally?<\/strong><\/p>\n Internally there was a lot of conversation in specific channels where people were complaining, but leadership never really answered anything. I had some of my posts deleted.<\/p>\n What had you written, and did you ever get any sort of answer as to why this stuff was deleted?<\/strong><\/p>\n I had several posts deleted because they contained the word \u201cgenocide,\u201d and I was told that genocide is an intrinsically violent word, and so I was violating internal policies. Even when my posts weren\u2019t deleted, I often had conversations with my manager and HR telling me that my tone was not appropriate because I was too aggressive and that I should raise my concerns in different ways.<\/p>\n \u201cI was told that genocide is an intrinsically violent word.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n They basically wanted us to send [internal HR] tickets to raise our concerns. The problem is that when you do that, you receive semi-automated answers with absolutely no content, nobody is engaged on the concern you have raised. There\u2019s no discussion at all, you don\u2019t even interact with a human. It\u2019s a lot of administrative and bureaucratic steps you have to follow to raise concerns. What I wanted was discussion and what I wanted was very clear answers from leadership.<\/p>\n They tell you<\/a> this is not the place to raise concerns, try to go through this other channel. This is the common technique. They always tell you to do something else, try to make you tired, and you will never get an answer.<\/p>\n [Editor\u2019s note: The Intercept asked Google about Liguori\u2019s criticism of both the contract and how discussion is handled internally. Spokesperson Tom Hewett responded: \u201cWe work with public sector organisations worldwide and follow a consistent process for reviewing and entering these contracts, including compliance with our acceptable use policies and AI principles. We also have dedicated channels for employees to safely raise any concerns \u2013 ranging from business ethics to misconduct \u2013 and have strict workplace policies in place to prevent retaliation of any kind.\u201d<\/em>]<\/p>\n I think the reason why you would be opposed to Project Nimbus is pretty straightforward: genocide. What were your specific concerns about or opposition to the Department of War contract?<\/strong><\/p>\n I\u2019m against the use of AI for targeting and in warfare in general, not only for autonomous weapons. I\u2019m against AI for war, and I don\u2019t think a commercial company like Google should have anything to do with that.<\/p>\n \u201cAI for targeting is very dangerous; it creates a system where it\u2019s easier to escalate the brutality of war.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n AI for targeting is very dangerous; it creates a system where it\u2019s easier to escalate the brutality of war. The first problem is the opacity introduced in the definition of targets and the dehumanization that follows. In principle, if you have to define targets, if you want to define Hamas combatants, you have to think what it actually means and come up with a definition.<\/p>\n But with these systems, you can bypass the definition. The system itself comes out with a definition. You don\u2019t even question it, you just blindly rely on the definition as the ultimate truth. The person just becomes a set of aggregated data points. All individuality is lost, all humanity is lost in in this process.<\/p>\n It becomes a system that dehumanizes people. It becomes a rubber stamp because the human brain cannot process all this information. You keep a person that formally approves it, but they don\u2019t, they cannot, meaningfully evaluate the output. This links to the accountability gap: Everyone in the kill chain can plausibly say that they didn\u2019t decide.<\/p>\n What did you do to protest the Department of War contract internally?<\/strong><\/p>\n Mainly messaging on corporate channels to inform colleagues, and speaking with them in person. I tried to channel the widespread dissatisfaction and indignation over the contract into the collective movement we are building, into our union effort. [Editor\u2019s note: DeepMind employees voted to unionize in May<\/em>.] Many people still don\u2019t know there are other colleagues organizing against these contracts and for a more ethical Google DeepMind.<\/p>\n When you are alone and you lose faith in your company, and you stop believing your work makes a positive difference, you can only become disillusioned and frustrated, and you ultimately end in acceptance and cynicism, or you leave. Finding you are not alone, and joining a collective movement, gives a much better option. It gave me the strength to stay, at least for a year.<\/p>\n I also co-organized a demonstration in February in front of the office. The scope was broader than just the Department of War, but the December GenAI.mil launch had given me a deep sense of urgency, and that\u2019s why I organized the demonstration. I knew something like the classified deal was coming, and I knew this meant legitimizing Nimbus-style collaborations to become the standard. The demonstration was for Gaza and for any use of AI in war. We had banners with \u201cNo AI in the kill chain\u201d and \u201cNo Gemini for Genocide.\u201d<\/p>\n Has your work as a research engineer contributed to your concerns about this technology being used to kill? How has your technical knowledge informed your opposition?<\/strong><\/p>\n Understanding how these systems work makes it easier to see where the problem is. Understanding statistical aggregation, and how easy it is to just delegate responsibility, delegate decision-making, makes a difference. But I think it\u2019s more important to do some philosophical reasoning here.<\/p>\n Do you have concerns about the reliability of the technology?<\/strong><\/p>\n I am concerned about unreliability. But I don\u2019t think you should ever look at unreliability separate from a discussion of why AI in warfare is wrong by itself. <\/p>\n A lot of the time what I hear is a focus on error, for example, the Minab school attack<\/a>. If we focus only on the error, we are basically saying that if there was no error, these systems for automated targeting are OK.<\/p>\n Were there people within Deep Mind who were supportive of this contract or military work generally?<\/strong><\/p>\n Yes, it was actually a very debated topic. I think there is broad consensus on the Anthropic red lines, which are fully autonomous weapons and mass surveillance<\/a>.<\/p>\n But on whether to use AI for military purposes, this is a much more debated topic, and a lot of people buy the narrative of us-versus-them: That we need to defend ourselves against Russia, against China, and so on.<\/p>\n What was your thought process on deciding to leave the company over this?<\/strong><\/p>\n It was a very challenging year. I came back as a new mom with a full-time job, a baby to handle, I had some health issues, and I was committing to activism basically on the side. Many people told me, you can slow down, but I couldn\u2019t. I couldn\u2019t stay in the company and just go on with business as usual. I really felt we needed to stop the Department of War contract because I perceive that contract as normalizing what happened in Gaza \u2014 the kind of tech-powered, AI-powered, brutal war that was tested in Gaza was getting approved to become the standard of war.<\/p>\n \u201cThe kind of tech-powered, AI-powered, brutal war that was tested in Gaza was getting approved to become the standard of war.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n I don\u2019t think petitions have a great effect in general. The [DeepMind] petition<\/a> summarized my disillusionment from us not having done more during the year to prevent this from happening. For me, really, we should have gone on strike\u00a0this year. We should have stopped working.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n