I'm not sure you can ground a copyright judgment based on whether something is truly intelligent, or just looks like it. The means through which a piece of con

I'm not sure you can ground a copyright judgment based on whether something is truly intelligent, or just looks like it. The means through which a piece of content has been produced is totally irrelevant. The original content has to be distinguishable in the new one for copyright laws to apply. This has been judged over and over when sampling became more and more widespread. Some DJ sampled the original songs blatantly and thus had to pay the original authors. Others applied so many sound transformations that it was basically impossible to identify and thus copyright was basically impossible to apply.