Thomas Markle Sr has admitted to paying for sex in the Philippines but denies ever possessing child abuse images
Bloomberg/Getty Images
Pay attention, prospective applicants: The graduate candidates Google DeepMind wants to hire are not defined by their degree alone.
At a media lunch in September, Lila Ibrahim, Google DeepMind's chief AI readiness officer, said that the firm is increasingly looking for candidates who can show a record of learning beyond the classroom.
Whether it's researchers, engineers, or other roles, degrees still matter, she said, but there's been a shift toward placing greater weight on the extra credentials and experience on a candidate's résumé.
"One credential will tell me what you've learned, but multiple credentials tell me that you have a learning mindset," said Ibrahim.
Today's graduates often showcase more detail about what they have studied outside a formal learning environment on their résumés, alongside their job and education history, she said.
"I look at some of the new college grad résumés and CVs right now, and I'm like, 'Oh wow, this is so different from what I did in my generation.'"
That additional detail matters to recruiters at Google DeepMind because it can reveal whether a candidate is curious and "preset to a life of lifelong learning," she said.
Ibrahim said she believes another benefit of diverse learning experiences is that people can become better at asking questions — a capability she sees as valuable in an AI-powered workplace, but one she said isn't taught well in schools.
"You realize that a lot of people in school haven't necessarily been taught how to ask questions, how to ask good questions, and how to really question why."
These human skills matter even if someone is technically skilled with AI, she added. "Getting answers is super cheap these days, but actually knowing how to ask really good questions is getting harder and harder."
Ibrahim summed up DeepMind's criteria for applicants as: "Curiosity, courage to take on something completely new that is unpredictable, and the ability to work in a dynamic environment and to be able to collaborate with people."
Ibrahim was formerly Google DeepMind's chief operating officer, a role she had held since 2018. At the beginning of 2026, she became chief AI readiness officer, a role she said she created to help address a widening gap between the technology being built and society's readiness to receive it.
Google DeepMind's founder, Demis Hassabis, has been among the frontier AI executives warning that society has a narrow window to prepare for the next stage of the technology.
Chris Jung/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Hassabis has said that STEM and computer science studies remain important, but the AI world also requires the humanities, such as philosophy, economics, and ethics.
"I think we really need them in the world we're about to enter," he said during an interview at a London business conference in July.
What Google DeepMind looks for is interdisciplinary people who can collaborate well with others, said Ibrahim.
Having "the neuroscientist, alongside the ethicist, alongside the biologist," has massively helped with some of DeepMind's technical breakthroughs, she said. The lab has hired numerous philosophers, she said, adding that "you need to pair them with operators to turn those ideas into action."
So far, it hasn't been a challenge to find those skills in the UK, said Ibrahim. "Compared to my time in Silicon Valley over 30 years, what I have seen is more diverse talent because there is a strong appreciation toward philosophy and political science, and some of these other skills."
As AI has seeped into the everyday workplace, fears of AI-related job loss have somewhat abated. Rather than taking jobs, AI is changing them, and the pressure is now on workers and HR departments to develop the right combination of "human" and AI skills.
A recent study of more than 300 million registered learners on Coursera and Udemy found that companies' AI deployment is outpacing the skills people need to use it effectively.
While nearly 75% of organizations have deployed or are piloting the technology, only 18% reported that most of their workforce participated in AI upskilling or reskilling over the last year.
His call for an “honest discussion” deserves support. Before making another consequential European choice, Britain needs evidence, scrutiny and political leadership willing to acknowledge uncomfortable trade-offs. Burnham’s willingness to consider closer relations creates space for precisely that debate. news.sky.com
The immediate opposition response was predictable. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp rejected any return to free movement, while Nigel Farage accused Burnham of betraying Brexit voters. Yet neither objection answers the central question: which relationship with Europe would best advance British prosperity, security and opportunity today?
The 2016 referendum authorised Britain’s departure from the EU. It did not remove future generations’ right to reconsider the terms of that relationship. Democratic decisions carry authority, but democracy also provides the means to change direction. Otherwise, elections would become ceremonies for administering choices made permanently elsewhere.
Burnham’s recognition that fundamental changes require a fresh electoral mandate is therefore essential. Labour’s 2024 manifesto ruled out restoring free movement, single market membership and a customs union. Any departure from those commitments must be explained clearly and put before voters. Opening a discussion is a legitimate first step.
The strongest feature of Burnham’s intervention is his insistence that migration deserves closer examination than familiar campaign slogans permit. He argues that the movement associated with EU membership often involved people arriving temporarily, working and subsequently returning home. That proposition merits testing against the evidence, including differences between sectors and communities.
It also restores a neglected part of the argument: free movement worked both ways. British citizens could build careers, study and establish lives across participating European countries. For younger Britons, especially, those opportunities should feature prominently in any assessment of what a future agreement could offer.
There were difficulties. Rapid population changes placed pressure on some communities, and governments too often failed to match economic change with housing, infrastructure and public services. A persuasive case for renewed mobility must acknowledge those experiences. Burnham will gain credibility by explaining how his approach would address them.
But acknowledging past failures should encourage better policy. It should not close the conversation. The relevant questions concern employment, wages, investment, public-service capacity and reciprocal rights. Each deserves serious analysis. Treating every proposal for mobility as surrendering the border substitutes a political warning label for an examination of the actual arrangements.
The economic argument deserves equally careful treatment. Closer participation in European markets could make some cross-border business easier and widen recruitment opportunities. The benefits would depend on the agreement negotiated. So would the obligations. Burnham should publish a transparent comparison of the available routes, with assumptions and uncertainties clearly identified.
His stated opposition to joining the euro or Schengen also helps define his starting position. However, Britain cannot determine the conditions of a future European settlement unilaterally. Any credible initiative must establish what Brussels would accept, what obligations Britain would undertake and which outcomes are realistically negotiable. thetimes.com
That is why the forthcoming Brussels summit matters. It offers an opportunity to explore possibilities and establish whether ambition can become a workable programme. Burnham should approach those discussions with confidence, while resisting promises that depend on concessions European partners have yet to offer.
His opponents are entitled to challenge every proposal. Indeed, a rigorous debate would strengthen any eventual settlement. But accusations of betrayal cannot become a permanent veto over discussing the national interest. Voters deserve competing arguments supported by evidence and a clear explanation of the choices available.
Burnham’s initiative is welcome because it treats the public as capable of reconsideration. Britain can respect the decision taken in 2016 while asking what should happen next. A prime minister prepared to lead that conversation, acknowledge its difficulties and seek democratic consent is offering something valuable: the possibility of moving forward.
Britain Confirms Russian Interference in Brexit Referendum After Ten Years
Login