Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
Google signs classified Pentagon AI deal but exits $100 million drone swarm program — report claims employees revolted over ethical fears, delivered letter to CEO Pichai
Google amended its existing contract with the U.S. Department of Defense on Monday to extend Gemini's availability to classified networks, granting the Pentagon permission to deploy the models for "any lawful government purpose." Separately, Bloombergreported the same day that Google had withdrawn from a $100 million Pentagon prize challenge to build voice-controlled autonomous drone swarm technology in February, following an internal ethics review.
Google joins OpenAI and Elon Musk's xAI in granting the Pentagon broad classified AI access. On the deal, Pentagon AI chief Cameron Stanley said that avoiding dependence on a single vendor was a priority.
Google's agreement requires the company to help modify its AI safety settings and filters at the government's request, with the contract including language stating that the AI system shouldn’t be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weapons “without appropriate human oversight and control,” but also specifies that the deal doesn’t give Google “any right to… veto lawful government operational decision-making,” which doesn’t make the agreed restrictions appear particularly solid.
Latest Videos From
A spokesperson for Google Public Sector told The Informationthat the company is "proud to be part of a broad consortium of leading AI labs and technology and cloud companies providing AI services and infrastructure in support of national security."
Google notified the government on February 11 that it wouldn’t continue in the drone swarm challenge, which sought technology for converting spoken commands into digital instructions for coordinating autonomous drones. The company officially cited a lack of resources, but internal records reviewed by Bloomberg showed the withdrawal followed an ethics review.
More than 600 Google employees delivered a letter to CEO Sundar Pichai on Monday urging him to reject the classified deal, arguing that it was the only way to prevent Google's AI from being misused.
Google faced a similar internal revolt in 2018 over Project Maven, a Pentagon contract for AI analysis of drone surveillance footage. The company let that contract lapse after roughly 4,000 employees signed a petition, and Palantir assumed the work, which has since grown into a $13 billion program of record.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Anthropic declined to agree to similar "any lawful purpose" terms earlier this year, insisting on explicit restrictions against autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance. The Pentagon responded by designating the company a supply chain risk, a label a federal judge later called "Orwellian" while blocking its enforcement. That litigation remains ongoing.
Luke James is a freelance writer and journalist. Although his background is in legal, he has a personal interest in all things tech, especially hardware and microelectronics, and anything regulatory.
Anthropic declined to agree to similar "any lawful purpose" terms earlier this year, insisting on explicit restrictions against autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance. The Pentagon responded by designating the company a supply chain risk, a label a federal judge later called "Orwellian" while blocking its enforcement. That litigation remains ongoing.
Anthropic was right in principal and then tangibly displayed as right by that move by the Pentagon. Great term that that judge used after such petty punishment move.
Who's the gatekeeper and enforcer of "any lawful purpose?" It gets a lot harder to track this when we're talking about classified information.
Who's the gatekeeper and enforcer of "any lawful purpose?" It gets a lot harder to track this when we're talking about classified information.
This is the part that stuck out to me too, as the current administration has already done several things that are deemed as unlawful or unconstitutional, so if they are deciding what's "unlawful" and what's not, then who knows what purposes they will use it for.
