This doesn't appear consistent with other visitors to your website. If a cafe owner uses info on your site to improve their baking, should they also be required to share their revenue with you?
If the cafe is a multi-billion corporation that can only exist because it can leech of content created by millions of other people without providing anything at all to them in return (and I'm not necessarily talking about financial compensation) then yeah.. maybe you should.
Starbucks business model is not entirely (or at all) reliant on the availability of new coffee drink recipes which can only be provided by third parties. So no, I wouldn't say so.
That already puts the website in the sleazy category. "I mixed my helpful information with mind poison" isn't a strong position to argue fair play from.
You missed the more general point that if folks do have a way of making revenue from their content then stealing their content would have a negative impact. Maybe someone has amazing content and offers classes. You might be able to think of other possibilities.
I see no point in engaging with this argument. ChatGPT is not a human. I, nor anyone else, should have to explain to you why that makes all the difference here.
If you don't want to engage in the argument, that's on you. I don't think ChatGPT not being a human makes any difference and I think the onus is on you to explain why it should.
Now you're shifting the goal posts. Please re-read the comments/replies up to this point and you'll see no mention of laws anywhere. That's not what the discussion is about. It's about whether AI consumers of publicly accessible content should be required to pay for that content when human consumers should not.
