Aloo Methi, ChatGPT and the Supreme Court

It is Saturday afternoon and I am finally having a free moment to myself, and decide to learn a new recipe.

Today's recipe calls for Aloo Methi (Potatoes and Fenugreek) - a traditional Indian dish that I enjoy, but had not cooked before.

As I went through the process, I couldn't help but notice that there is now a shift.

In fact, a Massive shift in how we cook and search for recipes: we just look up on ChatGPT.

Gone are the days of scrolling endlessly through blogs just to get to the ingredients.

ChatGPT gives you exactly what you need: the recipe, straight up, no fluff.

For users, it’s a dream come true. No pop-ups. No ads. No 500-word backstory about a grandmother’s garden.

But here’s the ethical question: what about the people who created those recipes and those videos and those recipe websites?

Recipe websites are often built on passion and expertise, shared freely—but with ads to keep the lights on.

ChatGPT takes that collective knowledge and serves it up in seconds, with no mention of the original creators.

It’s efficient for users but feels unfair to those who invested time, energy, and creativity.

At the same time, is this just progress? After all, the user experience has undeniably improved.

No distractions, no interruptions—just good food and clear instructions.

But does that convenience come at too high a cost to the creators?

It’s a complex debate, with no easy answers.

What’s clear is this: the recipe market has been disrupted, and it’s changing how we cook, learn, and create.

Now, I am well aware that the New York Times case against Open AI is before the federal court.

And maybe the Courts will decide that we need to hear the backstory about the grandmother's garden after all.

Or maybe, the courts will decide that the OpenAI's "Fair Use" argument is fine, and that this is just progress, and that change is inevitable so get over it.

What’s your take—progress or a problem? Let’s talk.