While the analogy is correct, the binaries generated by compilers does involve integration of creative work beyond that in the code compiled. The binary as such is a 'derivative work' generated from creativity of the authors of the source code, compiler, and standard libraries. What happens is that the copyright licenses coming along with compilers and standard libraries explicitly grant generous permissions to the users of the compilers.

For algorithmic art, likewise the developers of the software typically provide permissive licenses to the users of the software.

AI makes this harder because the works are massively derivative works, which AFAIK, do not have much precedants in law. The question is not easy to answer unless the author (Nvidia in this case) owned copyright over all training data.