An AI is just a computer program. It’s an intangible asset. Any IP it generates was the work of the AI programmer, or perhaps also the operator who provides it with input and instructions on how to process it.
It's not currently understood that the result of compiling code implies a claim to copyright or derivative works of any resulting compiler output, which is GP's point.
Actually, there's an argument that, even if GCC and its support libraries did not have the compiler exception clause, then there still would be no GPL "infection" of compiled code. License to use a software program implicitly carries with it a right to make any necessary copies that are functionally required, even if the copies would otherwise be infringing. So the compiler inserting copies of itself into your program would enable you to distribute those copies with your program without any further agreement (i.e., licenses) required, so long as you had legitimate license to the compiler itself.