Every response so far is no i.e. the hobby website doesn't merit any compensation.
A contrarian take to support the original commenter is that if the site owner had ads, i probably got him or her some increment in site visits and helped in some small way with monetization, site ranking and boosted his / her public persona, credibility.
When GPT bot visits, none of that happens. Much worse - people who might have visited the hobby site and contributed to traffic and ad revenue will now start getting their answers from the OpenAI chatbot and never visit this hobby site.
That's exploitation and I think that's what most of the responses on this thread miss.
The responses are nihilistic libertarian, as is typical here.
When a private company takes the sum of human knowledge without permission, attribution or payment and then monetizes it via the back door whilst cutting of any connection between the intended consumer and publisher, then we're dealing with a system I'd describe as criminal. It cannot be morally defended as "fair" in any major economical or political system.
The fact that they call it "Open" AI shows the level of trolling involved.
I don't think it's so much about legality rather than maintaining incentives (both financial and immaterial) for people to publish high-qualicontent that's available publicly.
A contrarian take to support the original commenter is that if the site owner had ads, i probably got him or her some increment in site visits and helped in some small way with monetization, site ranking and boosted his / her public persona, credibility.
When GPT bot visits, none of that happens. Much worse - people who might have visited the hobby site and contributed to traffic and ad revenue will now start getting their answers from the OpenAI chatbot and never visit this hobby site.
That's exploitation and I think that's what most of the responses on this thread miss.