Just to be clear, what you're referring to is the current US standard for whether a work is copywritable, not whether training on data and "regurgitating existing ideas" is fair-use. The latter is what the GP comment was about:
> There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change
Correct. I just wanted to clarify the statement that parent made, as it seems like lots of people have a misassumption about the copyrightability of autonomous in the United States.
Expect it will be clarified and/or changed by law given how much money is at stake, but the current state is what the current state is.
If I were developing key IP with agents, I'd be very careful to document my human contribution.