News

DeepMind slows down research releases in battle to keep competitive edge

Published

1 year ago

April 1, 2025

DeepMind slows down research releases in battle to keep competitive edge

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Google’s artificial intelligence arm DeepMind has been holding back the release of its world-renowned research, as it seeks to retain a competitive edge in the race to dominate the burgeoning AI industry.

The group, led by Nobel Prize winner Sir Demis Hassabis, has introduced a tougher vetting process and more bureaucracy that made it harder to publish studies about its work on AI, according to seven current and former research scientists at Google DeepMind.

Three former researchers said that the group was most reluctant to share papers that reveal innovations that could be exploited by competitors, or cast Google’s own Gemini AI model in a negative light compared to others.

The changes represent a significant shift for DeepMind, which has long prided itself on its reputation for releasing groundbreaking papers and home for the best scientists building AI.

Meanwhile, huge breakthroughs by Google researchers — such as its 2017 “transformers” paper that provided the architecture behind large language models — played a central role in creating today’s boom in generative AI.

Since then, DeepMind has become a central part of its parent company’s drive to cash in on the cutting-edge technology, as investors expressed concern the Big Tech giant had ceded its early lead to the likes of ChatGPT maker OpenAI.

“I cannot imagine us putting out the transformer papers for general use now,” said one current researcher.

Among the changes in the company’s publication policies are a six-month embargo before “strategic” papers related to generative AI are released. Researchers also often need to convince several staff members of the merits of publication, said two people with knowledge of the matter.

A person close to DeepMind said the changes were to benefit researchers who had become frustrated spending time on work that would not be approved for strategic or competitive reasons. They added that the company still publishes hundreds of papers each year and is among the largest contributors to major AI conferences.

Concern that Google was falling behind in the AI race contributed to the merger of the London-based DeepMind and California-based Brain AI units in 2023. Since then, it has been faster to roll out a wide array of AI-infused products.

“The company has shifted to one that cares more about product and less about getting research results out for the general public good,” said one former DeepMind research scientist. “It’s not what I signed up for.”

DeepMind said it has “always been committed to advancing AI research and we are instituting updates to our policies that preserve the ability for our teams to publish and contribute to the broader research ecosystem”.

While the company had a publication review process in place before DeepMind’s merger with Brain, the system has become more bureaucratic, according to those with knowledge of the changes.

Former staffers suggested the new processes have stifled the release of commercially sensitive research to avoid the leaking of potential innovations. One said that publishing papers on generative AI was “almost impossible”.

In one incident, DeepMind stopped the publication of research that showed Google’s Gemini language model is not as capable or is less safe than rivals, especially OpenAI’s GPT-4, according to one current employee.

However, the employee added it had also blocked a paper that revealed vulnerabilities in OpenAI’s ChatGPT, over concerns the release seemed like a hostile tit-for-tat.

A person close to DeepMind said it does not block papers that discuss security vulnerabilities, adding it routinely publishes such work under a “responsible disclosure policy,” in which researchers must give companies the chance to fix any flaws before making them public.

But the clampdown has unsettled some staffers, where success has long been measured through appearing in top-tier scientific journals. People with knowledge of the matter said the new review processes had contributed to some departures.

“If you can’t publish, it’s a career killer if you’re a researcher,” said a former researcher.

Some ex-staff added projects focused on improving its Gemini suite of AI-infused products were increasingly prioritised in the internal battle for access to data sets and computing power.

In the past few years, Google has produced a range of AI-powered products that have impressed the markets. This includes improving its AI-generated summaries that appear above search results, to unveiling an “Astra” AI agent that can answer real-time queries across video, audio and text.

The company’s share price has increased by as much as a third over the past year, though those gains pared back in recent weeks as concern over US tariffs hit tech stocks.

In recent years, Hassabis has balanced the desire of Google’s leaders to commercialise its breakthroughs with his life mission of trying to make artificial general intelligence (AGI) — AI systems with abilities that can match or surpass humans.

“Anything that gets in the way of that he will remove,” said one current employee. “He tells people this is a company not a university campus; if you want to work at a place like that, then leave.”

Additional reporting by George Hammond

News

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Published

4 hours ago

April 22, 2026

Press Room

California Candidates to Appear in First Major Debate After Swalwell

Candidates in California’s volatile race for governor will meet Wednesday night for the first televised debate since Eric Swalwell dropped out, each looking to seize momentum in the tight contest.

The debate, being held at the television studio of KRON4 in San Francisco, will include four Democrats and two Republicans who are tightly bunched in recent polls, with many voters still undecided less than six weeks before the June 2 primary.

Mr. Swalwell, a Democrat, had just begun to emerge as a Democratic front-runner when his campaign swiftly collapsed after he was accused of sexual assault in news reports on April 10.

Candidates have taken relatively few risks so far in debates around the state, but every candidate is now eyeing a chance to jump to the front of the pack.

“Even though we have seen some movement in the last couple of weeks, it continues to be a fairly crowded, fractured field,” said Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College. “So candidates need to be able to grab attention in a debate like this.”

The debate comes as Xavier Becerra, a Democrat and former California attorney general, has enjoyed a surge of support in polls since Mr. Swalwell dropped out of the race.

Mr. Becerra and Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose, did not originally meet the threshold to participate in Wednesday’s debate when Mr. Swalwell was running. But they both qualified after receiving enough support in a follow-up poll that debate organizers commissioned once Mr. Swalwell had dropped out.

The other Democrats scheduled to participate are Tom Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, and Katie Porter, a former congresswoman, each of whom have been polling near the top of the Democratic field for several weeks. The Republicans in the debate are Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host who has been endorsed by President Trump, and Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County.

All candidates run on the same ballot in California’s nonpartisan primary, with the two who receive the most votes advancing to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. The large number of Democratic candidates has created fear among state party leaders that their voters could splinter, potentially allowing two Republicans to sweep the primary in this heavily Democratic state.

The odds of that happening have decreased since Mr. Swalwell dropped out and another Democrat, Betty Yee, withdrew on Monday. But Rusty Hicks, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, still believes there are too many Democrats in the race and has urged those lagging in polls to end their campaigns. (The actual ballot will include 61 candidates for governor, most of whom are completely unknown to voters.)

The messy race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for re-election because of term limits, has played out as the most unpredictable contest California has seen in a generation. It has attracted a sprawling field but no one with the star power of former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or the political might of Mr. Newsom or former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Much of California’s Democratic establishment is still figuring out whom to back in the turbulent race.

Mr. Newsom has not endorsed anyone, saying he trusts voters to elect someone “who reflects the values and direction Californians believe in.” Representative Nancy Pelosi, the influential former House speaker from San Francisco, and Senator Alex Padilla also have not announced their favorites. Senator Adam Schiff endorsed Mr. Swalwell earlier this year but quickly withdrew his support after the accusations against him were published.

On Tuesday, Ms. Yee endorsed Mr. Steyer, praising his work to fight climate change and engage young voters. Mr. Steyer has swamped his competitors with a raft of advertising by pouring $134 million from his personal fortune into his campaign.

Also on Tuesday, Mr. Becerra, whose campaign had appeared to be flailing until Mr. Swalwell dropped out, received the endorsement of Robert Rivas, the Democratic speaker of the California State Assembly. Mr. Rivas said he had encouraged Mr. Becerra to run for governor because he was impressed by his work as California’s attorney general during President Trump’s first term.

“He understands both the policy and the politics,” Mr. Rivas said in an interview. “And he has a track record, in my opinion, of delivering results under pressure.”

The 90-minute debate on Wednesday begins at 7 p.m. PT and will be broadcast and streamed by KRON and other California stations.

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

16 hours ago

April 21, 2026

Press Room

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

19 hours ago

April 21, 2026

Press Room

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

Moms for Liberty among conservative groups named 'extremist' by civil rights watchdog

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”