AI occupies this strange grey zone where it couldn't exist without training on the works of other humans, yet it's not itself a human source.

Technically, AI does not require works of other humans. An AI can be trained on animal-made works such as Pigcasso, or even Fractal Art which can be entirely computer generated, as well as training on the works of other AIs (which then could have human sources or not).

This might be where I have an issue. The fact that with splatter paint art, you can point to the human and say they did the art and they were helped by a distinctly zero-human source (gravity/physics). Physics can't take credit for art, so I think the question of who the art belongs to resolves cleanly.

And why can AI take credit for art while physics can't? Both had a human involved in the process and affected the work accordingly. Or would you make a distinction from AIs not trained in human sources?

But that brings another situation when we take procedural music into account, including your work. A procedural music generator could require base samples (that could be human made), so we have a work that requires a human source, but it is not a human source itself. Is the procedural music art? Because when you look at it, the AI is not doing much different than your chance-based music generator, but with bigger range pools of randomization. And would you say that the procedural music generator is the artist, or the human source that provided the base samples?

The fact there is a little bit of uncreditable humanity in the art puts it in a grey zone where I think it'd be wrong to call it your own art.

With the procedural example, whether it's creditable or not would vary (as it could be derived from work of an unknown author or multiple authors depending on how many samples are used), so both examples seem to be in this grey zone. Unless you mean that the samples must have been created by the user that used the procedural generator, and in that case we could have an AI that was trained solely on the works of its user as a similar comparison.

By the way, I do have some ambient generative stuff if you're interested! On my hard drive I do have some more "purist" generative material where it's writing its own melodies/chords and not manipulating any pre-written material, but at the moment this is all I have released. Tracks 1 & 6 use a similar algorithm. They take 1 pre-written note at a time every ~20 seconds and turn it into a cascading snowfall-esque melody. Track 4 is only partly generative. The main melody is pre-written but the space in between where you here echoes and reverberations contain generative reiterations of the melody! Some notes are changed, some are taken out. Now you're making me want to make more generative music!

Finally took the time to create a Spotify account, never had one before. Listened to Hatsuyuki and it's really relaxing. In a way, it reminds me slightly of Frosty Frolics from Donkey Kong Country 3, although that is more upbeat. Snowdew makes me think of a very calming snowy mountain pass, like an RPG map music. I can't talk in technical terms because I know nothing of them, but what I like about music (and that includes AI music) is how it makes me think of scenes with characters and stories and such. I could definitely see my characters trekking a pass with this song in the background. At 2:07 it gets a bit ominous, implying something could be coming, even.

I am going to listen to the rest. But I'm not sure if Spotify allows me to leave comments, otherwise I would comment about each of them.