It's "robots.txt", not "robot.txt". I'm not just nitpicking -- it's a clear signal the journalist has no idea what they're talking about.

That and the fact that they're using a log file with the timestamps omitted as evidence of "how ruthelessly an OpenAI bot was accessing the site" makes the claims in the article a bit suspect.

OpenAI isn't necessarily in the clear here, but this is a low-quality article that doesn't provide much signal either way.