
What happened
Unsealed filings in the New York Times' case show Microsoft and OpenAI internal documents warned their AI scraping started a 'doom loop' and was the 'largest theft of labor in human history.'
Why it matters
The companies' own words suggest they knew their models threatened the publishers whose content trains them, potentially damaging their own supply chain.
What to watch
Microsoft says these views are one employee's and not the company's; the test is whether the court accepts that distinction or treats the documents as evidence of intent.
WHO IT HITSNews publishers and content creators whose work has been scraped for AI training are the clearest audience, as the documents describe harm to their referral traffic and compensation.
Summaries like this, every morning.
The unsealed documents come from the New York Times' ongoing copyright case against OpenAI and Microsoft. They reveal that, internally, both companies anticipated the damage their AI products could cause to publishers. Brent Hecht, Microsoft's Director of Applied Science, called the data harvesting the 'largest theft of labor in human history' and said Microsoft's fair use defense made a 'complete mockery' of the concept. A Microsoft internal document warned that their AI content strategy had started a 'doom loop' that would hurt both their models and the entire web.
Microsoft has since tried to distance itself from these statements, with spokesperson Alex Haurek saying they reflect one employee's individual perspective. In a separate filing, Jordan Usdan, GM for Data Strategy and Ops at Microsoft AI, described Hecht's role as adversarial and said he does not speak for Microsoft on these theoretical views. The filings also include statements from Satya Nadella, Sam Altman, and others.
OpenAI's own employees acknowledged that ChatGPT could reproduce copyrighted material verbatim, and that GPT-4 'memorized a ton of data.' OpenAI Policy Director Jack Clark warned about creating systems that substitute for human labor. The documents suggest both companies knew they might irreparably harm the publishing industry but proceeded anyway, and the court will now weigh whether that knowledge matters legally.
Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.
Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →
Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.
ExaWizards will strengthen its business partnership with Fukuoka Financial Group, targeting back-office work a…

Democrats swept the midterms, and Texas elected Gina Hinojosa, who pledged a moratorium on data center constru…

The Nasdaq-100 was 9% below its peak at last Friday's close as investors questioned AI spending, pressuring Nv…

Starting in early 2027, Google will make Gemini, Gemini Notebook, and Google Search off by default for student…

ADNOC signed a deal with OpenAI and G42 to become the world's first energy company deploying OpenAI's Frontier…

Alphabet said Search revenue growth slowed to 12 percent year over year in Q3 from roughly 17 percent, and pai…
