Google Is Reportedly Paying DeepMind’s AI Staff to Stay Put—And Do Nothing

Turns out, doing nothing might be the hottest job in tech right now—if you work for Google’s AI team.

According to a report, Google is allegedly placing some DeepMind employees on paid leave for up to a year—not because they’re being punished, but because the company doesn’t want them taking their talents to the competition. That’s right: Google is paying top AI minds to sit on the sidelines rather than risk them jumping ship to rivals like OpenAI or Microsoft.

The practice, known as "garden leave," isn’t new in the corporate world. But insiders say Google is enforcing it more aggressively within DeepMind’s UK office. A number of senior AI researchers, especially those involved with the Gemini model family, have reportedly been offered this extended downtime as part of strict noncompete agreements.

AI Talent Wars Heating Up

The AI boom has created a talent arms race, especially in London, where companies like Microsoft and OpenAI are beefing up their local presence. For companies like Google, losing top talent doesn’t just hurt—it’s a threat to future dominance.

But the decision to bench employees has sparked criticism. Nando de Freitas, a former DeepMind director now at Microsoft, didn’t hold back. He called the practice an "abuse of power" and claimed multiple DeepMind employees had reached out to him, unsure how to navigate their noncompete restrictions.

Dear @GoogDeepMind ers, First, congrats on the new impressive models.

Every week one of you reaches out to me in despair to ask me how to escape your notice periods and noncompetes. Also asking me for a job because your manager has explained this is the way to get promoted, but…

— Nando de Freitas (@NandoDF) March 26, 2025

In response, a Google spokesperson defended the move: “Given the sensitive nature of our work, we use noncompetes selectively to protect our legitimate interests.”

Still, for some of the brightest minds in AI, being paid to do nothing isn’t as glamorous as it sounds. Critics argue it stifles innovation, limits career freedom, and could push frustrated researchers out of the industry altogether.

It’s a strange chapter in the AI gold rush—where staying home might be more lucrative than showing up to build the future.