> "The idea that OpenAI had him killed is beyond ludicrous." On the other hand, given that everyone either assumes the whistle-blower was murdered, or at least

> "The idea that OpenAI had him killed is beyond ludicrous." On the other hand, given that everyone either assumes the whistle-blower was murdered, or at least that the stress of the situation contributed to the suicide, why did OpenAI not do absolutely everything in their power to keep the person safe and mentally well? Why should OpenAI have zero liability for the death, which anyone could have foreseen was a reasonably possible outcome? It just seems like whistleblower protection laws could be much more effective if the company had genuine incentive in the person not dying.