Perhaps the final judgment would say "AI cannot infringe on copyright provided that only other AIs consume the result of the first AIs work".

And suddenly there is a world of robots composing, writing and painting for other robots. With us humans left out.

There should be a /s at the end, but legal world sometimes produces such convolutions. See, for example, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Reich.

As far as IP protections go, they're similar, but the incentives are so different that you get songwriters going to court over bits of melodies that might be worth millions. Outside of quantitative trading, it's hard to find an example of 10 lines of code that are worth millions and couldn't easily be replaced with another implementation.

This is a stupid argument that the Twitter author made. Saving music digitally is reading by robot, so recording music that wasn't digital into a digital format is fair use.

> recording music that wasn't digital into a digital format is fair use

If you’re doing it from an analog format you bought for your own use (format shifting), it is fair use.