I have to say, this idea that we should assume the best of the large corporate entity to the detriment of the very real human person until "we know more context" strikes me as shockingly and painfully naive.

Is the assumption here that Google is somehow better behaved than other corporations? I don't think there's any factual basis for such thinking. In my experience, corporations are laser focused on money, quarter-by-quarter, with little to no concern for the human cost. Google has been asked for comment and has consistently declined, in my opinion we should give much more weight to the real person here.

We all have much more in common with the AI researcher than the large, faceless corporate entity. If we are at all principled, it's easy to imagine ourselves in a similar situation.

Why the hand-wringing over this email they sent, the suspicion that it was all "hardball negotiating" and "bluffing"? The email to the mailing list pretty clearly outlines their concerns and reaction to Google, it seems a pretty safe assumption that their email to Google management covers much the same information.[0]

This idea that they are bluffing strikes me as insulting: is there any reason to suspect they are bluffing? I don't see that in any of the coverage, by my reading this person felt this back-and-forth over the publication of this paper at the last minute was the last straw, their exasperation and frustration with Google is clear. It seems to me they were entirely willing to resign.

[0]: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...