On: USCO tells judge that art created without human involvement is not protectable

[Gigachad]

Because the legal system treats software as a tool and not a legal entity. AI can't hold copyright in the same way your paint brush or copy of photoshop can't hold copyright.

Sure AI is much more effective, but what would it even mean for AI to hold copyright and why would it even be useful to do this?

[blown_gasket → Gigachad]

My comment was going in the direction of I think that, in an ideal system, legally an AI system would be looked at differently than many other tools.

I have no answer to your questions because I haven't thought about them.

[Gigachad → blown_gasket]

The legal system serves to provide useful rules for the benefit of society. Even though logically AI tools are more powerful and more self directed than simple programs, there is no reason we would actually want them to own AI because there is no use for a non legal entity to own something.