Fair use only covers very limited circumstances which probably does not include selling a subscription (ChatGPT+). If you’re selling a repackaged reproduction of someone else’s copyrighted works, that’s never protected by fair use.
But you generally can't copyright the underlying facts, only the creative expression in the article/work itself. If they can get it to extract just the facts and how they relate to one another, that wouldn't really be protected by copyright. They might try to bring back the "Hot News" doctrine though.
My naive reading of it sees that it only applies for time-sensitive facts. Considering the training times required, and knowledge cutoffs, could this apply?
But you can't copyright the underlying facts nor the style of writing, just the literal words used in your article. If you can't point to a sequence of words in the original that's in the later work, that later work isn't "derivative".