OpenAI and Microsoft knew they were starting a ‘doom loop’ for the web | The VergeSkip to main contentThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.The VergeThe Verge logo.TechReviewsScienceEntertainmentAIPolicyNotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonThe homepageThe VergeThe Verge logo.NotificationsNotificationsHamburger Navigation ButtonNavigation DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Login / Sign UpcloseCloseSearchLightSystemDarkTechExpandAmazonAppleFacebookGoogleMicrosoftSamsungBusinessSee all techReviewsExpandSmart Home ReviewsPhone ReviewsTablet ReviewsHeadphone ReviewsSee all reviewsScienceExpandSpaceEnergyEnvironmentHealthSee all scienceEntertainmentExpandTV ShowsMoviesAudioSee all entertainmentAIExpandOpenAIAnthropicSee all AIPolicyExpandAntitrustPoliticsLawSecuritySee all policyGadgetsExpandLaptopsPhonesTVsHeadphonesSpeakersWearablesSee all gadgetsVerge ShoppingExpandBuying GuidesDealsGift GuidesSee all shoppingGamingExpandXboxPlayStationNintendoSee all gamingStreamingExpandDisneyHBONetflixYouTubeCreatorsSee all streamingTransportationExpandElectric CarsAutonomous CarsRide-sharingScootersSee all transportationFeaturesVerge VideoExpandTikTokYouTubeInstagramPodcastsExpandDecoderThe VergecastVersion HistoryNewslettersArchivesStoreVerge Product UpdatesSubscribeFacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSThe VergeThe Verge logo.OpenAI and Microsoft knew they were starting a ‘doom loop’ for the webNotificationsNotificationsComments DrawerNotificationsCommentsLoading commentsGetting the conversation ready...AICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All TechOpenAI and Microsoft knew they were starting a ‘doom loop’ for the webThe companies knew they were driving us toward Google Zero, and did it anyway. The companies knew they were driving us toward Google Zero, and did it anyway. by Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienWeekend EditorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'BrienSep 18, 2026, 9:07 PM UTCLinkShareGiftImage: Cath Virginia / The Verge, Getty ImagesTerrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'Brien is the Verge’s weekend editor. He’s covered the tech industry for over 18 years and knows a thing or two about synths.Recently unsealed court documents in the New York Times’ case against OpenAI and Microsoft are pretty damning. The companies’ own documentation warned that it was starting a “doom loop” that would damage the web, characterized its scraping of data to train its models as the “largest theft of labor in human history,” and that it made a “complete mockery of the idea of fair use.”Many of the most eye-catching quotes from the document come from Microsoft’s Director of Applied Science, Brent Hecht. Though, the company has tried to distance itself from Hecht’s assertions. Microsoft spokesperson Alex Haurek told The Verge that “These comments reflect one employee’s individual perspective, are not a legal analysis, and do not represent the company’s views.”In a separate court filing, Jordan Usdan, GM for Data Strategy and Ops at Microsoft AI, characterized Hecht’s role as adversarial. He said that Hecht “holds divergent, academic, and forward-looking views about how data ecosystems for AI should operate and is employed at Microsoft to bring asymmetrical, futuristic, and academic points of view … nor is he someone who speaks for Microsoft specifically as to his theoretical views on AI’s potential effect on content creators.”But whether or not Microsoft wants to own these comments, it’s clear that this came true. Google Zero is real! AI is eating the web!There are plenty more wild statements in NYT’s filing from a variety of figures, including Satya Nadella, Sam Altman, and other OpenAI employees. Here are some highlights from the 92 page document.“An astonishing theft”The introduction quotes Hecht and OpenAI’s Head of ChatGPT (presumably Nick Turley) in a way that seems to show the companies knew they posed an “existential threat” to publishers like the New York Times. Hecht calls ChatGPT and Copilot’s harvesting of data the “largest theft of labor in human history” and says that Microsoft’s defense makes a “complete mockery of the idea of ‘fair use.’”It’s a “doom loop”Satya Nadella admits that chatbots have basically replaced search and removed the need to go straight to the source for info. But perhaps more damning is an internal Microsoft document that says, “Our AI content strategy has started a ‘doom loop’ that will hurt the performance of our models and the entire web at the same time: It is highly unusual that an end-product threatens the economic foundations of its essential suppliers, but that is the situation we have created for our LLM business with respect to its ‘content supply chain.’”That’s not even a real numberDon’t be fooled by OpenAI or Microsoft’s claims of altruistic intent. OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman is more interested in the “gazillions” of dollars it he could potentially make through commercial AI.Paywall shmaywallDespite Nadella later being quoted as saying, “anything that is paywalled should be licensed,” An OpenAI representative admitted that he was “unaware” of any effort to detect or remove paywalled content from training data.“Insanely good at regurgitation”Internally, it seems that OpenAI was well aware of ChatGPT’s tendency to simply reproduce copyrighted material “verbatim.” Even though it acknowledged that the “prevention of memorization” was important to “minimize copyright violations,” employees admitted that GPT-4 “memorized a ton of data and therefore will be insanely good at regurgitation.”The filing then goes on to cite several examples of ChatGPT outputting long strings of copy straight from articles in the Times, Mercury News, The Denver Post, LifeHacker, and Eurogamer in response to queries.“‘Hoovering up’ all their work”Microsoft knew how its wholesale scraping of the internet would be perceived and admitted that “almost no one intended for they [sic] content they created to be used in this fashion, nor are they compensated for its use.”A “substitute for the labor of people”OpenAI Policy Director Jack Clark saw the writing on the wall, saying that it was “creating systems that substitute for the labor of the people that define the ‘culture’ of society.” Internal documents described ChatGPT as “the modern newsstand.” OpenAI’s Nick Turley is later quoted as saying that once you get an answer from its chatbot, there is “no good reason to click” on a link to the source.Destroying their own supply chainMicrosoft is quoted as admitting that “LLMs are a product that destroys its own supply chain” because it’s a substitute for its own training data in many cases.OpenAI knows its killing referral trafficOpenAI’s own media and economic experts attributed the drop in referral traffic for sites like the Times directly to AI summaries like Google’s AI Overviews. They’ve speculated that search referrals may be down as much as 60 percent.Microsoft spokesperson Haurek cautioned that “Satya’s testimony and Microsoft’s position in this case are perfectly consistent. He spoke to broad principles and changes underway in how people find and consume information. Those observations should not be confused with conclusions about copyright questions before the Court, which Microsoft addresses in its filings.”But it seems pretty clear based on this newly unsealed document that both Microsoft and OpenAI knew they were going to irreparably harm the publishing industry, the “millions of people” it employs, and, by extension, damage their own product, but carried forward anyway in pursuit of “gazillions” of dollars — doom loop be damned.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Terrence O'BrienCloseTerrence O'BrienWeekend EditorPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Terrence O'BrienAICloseAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All AIGoogleCloseGooglePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All GoogleLawCloseLawPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All LawMicrosoftCloseMicrosoftPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All MicrosoftOpenAICloseOpenAIPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All OpenAIPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyTechCloseTechPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All TechMost PopularMost PopularThe Apple Watch Series 12 is the start of a new wearable eraThe 2.5-hour AI-generated Odyssey movie is 2.5 hours too longThe iPhone 18 Pro’s big camera update is all about the small gainsVideoInside the suddenly explosive world of AI safetyYour robotaxi might be a narcThe Verge DailyA free daily digest of the news that matters most.Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adMore in AIGavin Newsom is pushing for an AI kill switchWhat Hollywood thinks about existential AI warningsSecurity researchers used Claude to help them hack into OpenAIFlash floods can strike without warning — this new technology could change thatThe AI Superintelligence SlowdownClaude Code relaunches Projects to manage multiple AI agents in the cloudGavin Newsom is pushing for an AI kill switchLauren Feiner5:04 PM UTCWhat Hollywood thinks about existential AI warningsCharles Pulliam-Moore4:35 PM UTCSecurity researchers used Claude to help them hack into OpenAIStevie Bonifield3:30 PM UTCFlash floods can strike without warning — this new technology could change thatMegan Wollerton11:00 AM UTCThe AI Superintelligence SlowdownSean Hollister5:04 PM UTCClaude Code relaunches Projects to manage multiple AI agents in the cloudStevie BonifieldSep 17Advertiser Content FromThis is the title for the native adTop Stories4:35 PM UTCWhat Hollywood thinks about existential AI warnings11:00 AM UTCFlash floods can strike without warning — this new technology could change thatSep 16The iPhone 18 Pro: an ambitious new camera on the marginsVideo5:06 PM UTCThe real story of the iPhone 18 Pro’s cameraThe VergeThe Verge logo.FacebookThreadsInstagramYoutubeRSSContactTip UsCommunity GuidelinesArchivesAboutEthics StatementHow We Rate and Review ProductsCookie SettingsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy RightsYour Privacy ChoicesCookie NoticeAdChoicesLicensing FAQAccessibilityPlatform StatusPenske Media CorporationThe Verge is a part of PMX Global, LLC, a subsidiary of Penske Media Corporation.© 2026 VM Publishing, LLC. All rights reserved.Our SitesThe American PavilionARTnewsArt in AmericaArtforumArt Week NYCBeauty IncBillboardDeadlineDick Clark ProductionsThe DodoEaterFlow SpaceFNGold DerbyGolden GlobesThe Hollywood ReporterIndieWireLife is BeautifulPopsugarPunchSJ DenimRobb ReportRolling StoneSB NationSHE MediaShe KnowsSourcing JournalSoapsSporticoStyleCasterSXSWThrillistVarietyThe VergeVibeWWDNotifications DrawerThe VergeThe Verge logo.Sign in to see your notifications or create an account to join the conversation.Sign in

Recent unsealed court documents from the New York Times case against OpenAI and Microsoft reveal internal acknowledgments that the companies were actively driving the system toward a "doom loop" that threatens the web. The documentation explicitly characterized the data scraping used to train these models as the "largest theft of labor in human history" and noted that this practice amounted to a "complete mockery of the idea of fair use." These statements highlight the conflict between the pursuit of commercialization and the ethical implications of the training methodology.

Key figures within the companies offered commentary that reveals this awareness. Microsoft’s Director of Applied Science, Brent Hecht, posited that the harvesting of data by systems like ChatGPT and Copilot constitutes this massive theft and undermines fair use principles. While Microsoft has sought to distance itself from these assertions, other internal filings suggest a deeper understanding of the systemic damage. For instance, an internal Microsoft document described the AI content strategy as initiating a "doom loop" that would simultaneously harm model performance and the entire web by creating a problematic "content supply chain."

Other executives also addressed the consequences of this trajectory. Satya Nadella admitted that chatbots have effectively replaced traditional search methods, diminishing the need for users to seek out original sources. OpenAI representatives further admitted to being unaware of any efforts to detect or remove paywalled content from their training data, suggesting a lack of proactive measures against copyright infringement. Internally, employees indicated awareness that models like GPT-4 had memorized significant amounts of data, leading to a high propensity for regurgitation of copyrighted material, and employees acknowledged that preventing this memorization was necessary to minimize copyright violations.

The implications extend to the value chain of the internet itself. Microsoft admitted that the wholesale scraping of the internet, without compensation, meant that content created by others was used in ways for which creators were not compensated. OpenAI Policy Director Jack Clark expressed concern that these systems were creating entities that substitute for the labor of the people who define societal culture. Furthermore, OpenAI’s Nick Turley noted that obtaining an answer directly from a chatbot removes the incentive to click on external links to the original sources. This dynamic is compounded by observations that the AI's effectiveness has caused a significant decline in referral traffic for established publishing sites, with speculation suggesting search referrals may be diminished by up to sixty percent.

Ultimately, the documents suggest that despite acknowledging the potential irreparable harm to the publishing industry and the employment base it supports, both Microsoft and OpenAI proceeded with their objectives in pursuit of substantial financial gain, seemingly prioritizing the "doom loop" over ethical considerations. The admission that large language models function as a product that destroys their own supply chain emphasizes that the technological advancement is intrinsically linked to the destabilization of the resources it consumes.