He's being extra careful in case others don't read carefully.
The article says he did not want to criticize "Google or other companies" until he quit. That does not imply that he quit so he could critize Google specifically. It seems pretty simple: a senior employee of a company typically doesn't critize the employer; and, a Googler doing AI criticizing other companies (such as OpenAI) would undermine his message. So he quit so he could freely criticize everyone in AI.
I find the NYT to be very good at this "technically correct" sort of writing that is easily taken the wrong way. It would not have been hard for them to have included a line up front addressing that Hinton did not quit because he thinks Google acted imperfectly.
Another example of them doing this was with the "freedom" protestors in Canada. They claimed that a majority of funding for these protestors came from Canada. While yes, technically that is true, the full context is that some >40% of the funding came from foreign influencers, which is a figure that would alarm anyone if they actually just put the percentage right there. So they were technically correct, but still spun a narrative that was different than the reality.
I am a pretty careful reader. The article is clearly written in a way where they are not saying anything technically wrong, but they are trying to shape the impression the reader is left with.
Given how forcefully Hinton seems to have expressed this opinion, it would be easy for them to have included a sentence to better clarify his intent.
Hinton may have legal obligations to Google.(IMO) He is just being extra careful and and preemptively shutting down any notion that he went to NYT to rag on Google.
p.s. heck, almost every job I leave involves a bit of negotiation with benefits dangled/hostage to sign non-dispargement agreements. Do you really think G. Hinton walked away from Google without signing anything?
Do you really think it's incomprehensible that someone who is quitting so that they can talk freely would avoid signing documents that curtail their ability to talk freely?
I think that depends on how many millions we are talking about here, don't you? As to it being possible, sure, but such high profile positions usually entail agreements. But hey, he's on twitter, so why not ask him?
> I think that depends on how many millions we are talking about here, don't you?
Not as much as it depends on how many millions somebody already has, no.
Again, if you're sensitive to income loss, the answer would be to not trade ethics for money in precisely the way he just did. The probability of refusing to sign speech-curtailing agreements as you are quitting your job to gain more ability to speak freely is really extremely high.
Also, you might notice that this discussion you linked to about his compensation is from ten years ago. The benefits being discussed have already been accrued, for ten years.
I did say it is "possible". But again: it's a simple question to ask the man himself, Chris. "Geoffrey, have you entered into any standing agreements with Google that has a non-dispargement clause, or are you in anyway constrained about what you may say or disclose?" { I assume you have a twitter account. :}
p.s. per your speculation, he should feel free as a bird to tweet back "heck no, that's why I quit". (Kindly report back here with the answer and let us know.)
The article says he did not want to criticize "Google or other companies" until he quit. That does not imply that he quit so he could critize Google specifically. It seems pretty simple: a senior employee of a company typically doesn't critize the employer; and, a Googler doing AI criticizing other companies (such as OpenAI) would undermine his message. So he quit so he could freely criticize everyone in AI.