Liguori and Kirsch resign from Google DeepMind over military AI deployments

Liguori cites ethical values; Kirsch questions governance and oversight

The BBC spoke with several tech workers who had resigned from Google DeepMind, Google’s AI company, or were preparing to leave over concerns about Google’s military contracts. The report identified Sofia Liguori, a London-based research engineer who resigned this week, and AI researcher Andreas Kirsch, who resigned earlier this month. Liguori said Google’s increasing work with the US and Israeli militaries led her to lose faith in its stated ethical values. Kirsch separately said Google’s governance and oversight were “not sufficient or meaningful enough” to deploy AI safely and responsibly in military and classified settings.

Liguori spoke exclusively to the BBC despite a contract restricting her from doing so. After three years at Google, she said, speaking in a personal capacity: “Realising my company is pushing more and more for AI systems in military operations makes me feel ashamed to work at Google.” She tied her decision to Google’s increasing work with the US and Israeli militaries. “I don’t agree with this direction and this has led me to lose faith in my company being true to its stated ethical values,” Liguori said.

Google employees told the BBC that employment contracts prohibit them from publicly criticizing the company and that staff are scared to speak out about AI safety and its uses in warfare. “In principle I’m not allowed to criticise Google for the duration of my life,” Liguori said. She spoke anyway “because I believe it’s important for these things to be known and I also think that talking about facts is not criticising.” Liguori added that at Google, “people are scared of retaliation and putting their career at risk. You feel you are being watched, you can’t speak.”

A current Google DeepMind employee who declined to be named for fear of retaliation said “a lot of motivated employees who signed up for [the company’s] original mission could leave – but there’s also a pipeline of people at the start of the careers who could fill those positions. It could be a changing of the guard.” Another staff member, who also wished to remain anonymous, said: “A lot of people have left the company that feel strongly about this [how Google DeepMind has changed its ethics position].” The employee added: “Some people are putting up a fight, others are thinking: ‘it’s a big company. What do you expect to change?’”

Google response and Pentagon contract terms

A Google spokesperson told the BBC: “We 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.” The spokesperson also said: “We also have dedicated channels for employees to safely raise any concerns - ranging from business ethics to misconduct - and have strict workplace policies in place to prevent retaliation of any kind.”

Google’s contract with the Pentagon, signed earlier this year, allows its AI technology to be used for classified military work. The agreement says Google’s AI models can be used for “any lawful government purpose” and “should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons (including target selection) without appropriate human oversight and control.”

Oversight and military AI use

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has made integrating AI into the armed forces a key priority. In January, he said the Trump administration would become an “AI-first warfighting force.” AI technology is evolving rapidly, and critics question whether it is reliable enough to be used in warfare without more testing, stronger guardrails and human oversight.

According to Google’s AI Principles, the company implements AI with “human oversight” and aligns the technology with “international law and human rights.” Former and current Google staff and experts the BBC spoke to said they were concerned about the level of human oversight at critical moments. Tech workers said the military contracts signed this year greatly increase the scope of what the Pentagon can use the technology for.

Former Google employee and AI researcher Andreas Kirsch told the BBC that he believes “Google’s governance and oversight are not sufficient or meaningful enough to deploy AI safely and responsibly in military and classified settings” or “to develop artificial superintelligence safely in the future.” He added: “Google seems to have no right to control or veto how the Pentagon uses its AI and also seems to have limited visibility into how it’s being deployed.” Kirsch also said: “Current AI models are not robust enough, and I don’t think they have been trained for such tasks either.”

Similar contracts were signed by OpenAI, Amazon, Microsoft, SpaceX, Oracle, Nvidia and the start-up Reflection. The agreements allow AI technology to be deployed in military settings such as transport, planning and battlefield operations. As the technology evolves quickly, the BBC reported, concerns are growing about the use of AI in theatres of war. Sarah Shoker, formerly head of OpenAI’s Geopolitics team, said: “AI compresses the time an operator has to make a decision because it works much faster than a person, and that’s especially risky in a high-stress environment.” She added: “When you have hundreds of targets that are selected by AI and a short amount of time, it is almost impossible for a human operator to meaningfully review the AI’s outputs for errors.”

In the past few years, the US military has deployed multiple AI-enabled technologies to advance its warfighting abilities. The most prominent example cited by the BBC is Maven Smart Systems, the Pentagon’s main software platform for organizing intelligence and data. Developed by US defense company Palantir, Maven uses AI to help personnel select and identify targets to strike. Palantir has integrated technology from several leading AI companies into Maven and has enabled some processes to be significantly speeded up.

Retired Lieutenant General Jack Shanahan, the former director of Project Maven, said the emerging philosophy seemed to be: “Go as fast as possible to deploy [AI technology] as widely as possible, potentially at the expense of the rigour and discipline of test and evaluation.” The Pentagon has maintained that adopting AI is essential for winning wars. Emil Michael, an under secretary in the US Department of Defense, said in a statement earlier this year: “Speed defines victory in the AI era.”

The Pentagon agreement states that Google’s models should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons, including target selection, without appropriate human oversight and control. Kirsch said Google’s governance and oversight were “not sufficient or meaningful enough” for military and classified settings, and that Google “seems” to have limited visibility into how its AI is deployed. Shoker said human review is almost impossible when AI selects hundreds of targets in a short time. Google points to its contract-review process, AI principles, employee concern channels and workplace policies against retaliation, while Liguori said employees fear speaking about their concerns.

Project Nimbus background

Google’s agreements with Israel have also caused controversy. In 2024, staff criticized a joint contract with Amazon worth $1.2bn (£960m) called Project Nimbus, which provides Israel’s government and military with AI technology and cloud computing infrastructure. At the time, Google said Project Nimbus “is not directed at highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services.”

A recent documentary, Naza, examines the role of AI-powered targeting systems in bombarding the Gaza Strip and makes claims about resulting high civilian casualties. An Israeli government minister said the claims presented in the film were false and distorted.