My understanding is that it was not so much peer pressure so much as an explicitly coordinated worker action, based on a rational assessment of what their comp packages would look like if the board's plan played out completely.
Scenario A, Sam Altman continues as CEO and the for profit arm of OpenAI continues to call the shots, growth and market share continue to be priority number one.
Scenario B, Sam Altman is fired, OpenAI non-profit board (re?)-asserts more control. Safety, alignment and other things like that take priority over growth and market share.
x% of Employees are Sam believers, and when the remaining x% of ambiguous/non-Sam believers realize the first x% might leave, their PSUs would be worth significantly less, so they sign the letter as well. There is also the peer pressure / fear of retribution factor as well once it becomes likely there is even a chance of Sam being reinstated.
Many employees choose scenario A because it is likely their "profit sharing units" will be worth more than with scenario B. There's a non-zero chance that OpenAI (the for profit arm) eventually joins the ranks of the "FAANG" companies. Those PSUs might be worth millions today, but in the future could be worth "fuck you" levels of money.
That would shutdown the entire company.
And I would hope that wasn't their goal.
> So then why did the board re-hire Sam Altman?
Presumably so that the entire company wouldn't be shutdown.
Yeah... and? OpenAI is pretty much a for-profit company now. Why shouldn't a non-profit board pull the plug on a non-profit turned for-profit? Isn't that a part of their job?
And then it can't use that money on its mission because it shut down.
> Isn't that a part of their job?
No, it isn't. Their job would be to use the income that they received from that part of the business and spend it on their mission.
There are all sorts of non profits that operate in a similar way.
In fact acting sustainably is generally a positive for non-profits because it means that you can be more effective for longer without having to rely on donations.