The main issue is a well behaved AI company won't be singled out for continued access, they will all be hit by public sites blocking AI access. So there is no benefit to them behaving.
That's assuming they're deriving a benefit from misbehaving.
There is no benefit to immediately re-crawling 404s or following dynamic links into a rabbit hole of machine-generated junk data and empty search results pages in violation of robots.txt. They're wasting the site's bandwidth and their own in order to get trash they don't even want.
Meanwhile there is an obvious benefit to behaving: You don't, all by yourself, cause public sites to block everyone including you.
The problem here isn't malice, it's incompetence.
Receiving a response from someone's webserver is a privilege, not a right.
Why does any of them deserve any special treatment? Please don't try to normalize this reprehensible behavior. It's a greedy, exploitative and lawless behavior, no matter how much they downplay it or how long they've been doing it.
This is the problem with AI scraping. On one hand, they need a lot of content, on the other, no single piece of content is worth much by itself. If they were to pay every single website author, they'd spend far more on overhead than they would on the actual payments.
Radio faces a similar problem (it would be impossible to hunt down every artist and negotiate licensing deals for every single song you're trying to play). This is why you have collective rights management organizations, which are even permitted by law to manage your rights without your consent in some countries.