> Peer pressure and groupthink likely also swayed employees more than principles
What makes this "likely"?
Or is this just pure conjecture?
What makes this "likely"?
Or is this just pure conjecture?
Could it possibly be that the majority of OpenAI's workforce sincerely believed a midnight firing of the CEO were counterproductive to their organization's goals?
The logic being that if any opinion has above X% support, people are choosing it based on peer pressure.
To that end, observing unanimous behavior may imply some bias.
Here, it could be people fearing being a part of the minority. The minority are trivially identifiable, since the majority signed their names on a document.
I agree in your stance that a majority of the workforce disagreed with the way things were handled, but that proportion is likely a subset of the proportion who signed their names on the document, for the reasons stated above.
So clearly this wasn't a 50/50 coin flip.
The question at hand is whether the skew against the board was sincere or insincere.
Personally, I assume that people are acting in good faith, unless I have evidence to the contrary.
But future signees are influenced by previous signees.
Acting in good faith is different from bias.