I don't know about Chinese law, but the US concept is "work made for hire". This is satisfied by one of two alternatives, the first being "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." If you believe that an AI has sufficient personhood to be capable of authorship, then it is not unreasonable to presume that it is being employed by whomever is running it.

In the US, there are three factors that govern whether or not someone is an employee. These are:

> Control by the employer over the work. For example, the employer determines how the work is done, has the work done at the employer’s location, and provides equipment or other means to create the work.

> Control by employer over the employee. For example, the employer controls the employee’s schedule in creating the work, has the right to have the employee perform other assignments, determines the method of payment, or has the right to hire the employee’s assistants.

> Status and conduct of employer. For example, the employer is in business to produce such works, provides the employee with benefits, or withholds tax from the employee’s payment.

Looking at those factors, it is really hard to argue that an AI is not an employee, as far as US law is concerned.