You wouldn’t copyright an RNA sequence like this. While it is novel, I’m not sure you’d be able to get a copyright on it, as it’s a set sequence.

Instead, you’d patent it. And I’m not aware that that question has yet been asked. Especially when computationally driven drug design has a rich history, I’d expect for AI generated work to be patentable.

Not sure why this would matter, generally medication is incredibly expensive because of the research that needs to go into it not scaling well to the amount of people that might need it for rare disease. If drug discovery costs go down to almost nothing, and trialling is greatly assisted with AI driven protein folding, it would almost become trivial to cure most diseases.

Where are you seeing this? Everything I saw is that they are eligible for copyright, and the copyright is owned by the person who ran the tool and selected the output.

The news was dumb media bait where people tried to claim the AI itself owned the copyright which makes no sense since AI is not a legal entity able to own things.

In some jurisdictions - I would argue that will blatantly be overturned, as it's a limit on economic activity, and we know what happens to those.

Copyright means nothing anymore.