Neither copyright nor copyrightability has anything whatsoever to do with any element of any cause of action thus it is wholly orthogonal to whether anyone has been wronged in any unrelated fashion.
Judges are liable to be old, not very hip to technology, and incredibly suspicious of any argument that would allow someone to opt out of traditional culpability by adding with an AI to the end of a description of traditional wrong doing.
Yeah but no, the implicature still allows copyright without culpability (edited: got that mixed up). The assumption seems to be that the lack of intent in creation, where it is unpredictable, would likewise imply lack of intent to harm. But that doesn't say much.
Judges are liable to be old, not very hip to technology, and incredibly suspicious of any argument that would allow someone to opt out of traditional culpability by adding with an AI to the end of a description of traditional wrong doing.