Just some brief remarks - I could write 5 pages on this issue.
Creativity is not an absolute requirement for copyright; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
NN weights are intellectual property, but they are not source code. The GPL covers source code only. With the rise of NN, this could be an interesting issue, and personally I'd like to hear the position of the Free Software Foundation on that, but I don't think it's likely they'd ever view NN weights as "code", even if there is a degree of functional equivalence.
The idea that because monkey pressed the shutter button, the photographer does not own the copyright, is perversely stupid and wrong.
The final and the most important thing: copyright law has always been largely utilitarian both in theory and practice - of course, because it serves a purpose, like all laws. And let's be honest, it's not to protect "creativity" or "innovation" per se, but rather to protect the financial interests of creators. You have to create something that hasn't existed before, and you have to put some effort, resources and skill into it: this is your investment, and the law is meant to protect it. Ultimately, this is vital for the benefit of society in general, and the idea of benefit guides the way law is generally interpreted when things are not fully clear.