As you’ve said, most of these systems are quite unsatisfactory from an artistic point of view. However, I can list you two at least exceptions: Iamus and EMI. If you are into contemporary music, you’ll probably appreciate the music composed by Iamus ... Of course, it is not a AAA composer, but I would say it is a good music postgrad student!
I wouldn't go nearly that far.
The generative systems interest me as a programmer, but the music is still awful. I listened to the tracks you linked to, and while they do have more 'musicality', they are terrible compositions. (For my music credentials, I've played 3 instruments for 30 years now, my wife is a composer working with a local school, and I've audited several collegiate music courses on composition just to be with her as we learn new things. I'm also a semi-pro photgrapher and artist, studying those arts as well, so I can experience how different things evoke emotion.)
I still haven't heard any computer composed music that can hold a candle to even a moderately skilled composer. I have heard computers remix things well with human-guided configurations, but never heard them compose well. Those links, even though the one video had a human playing the composition, were not good music to me.
I like the research. It is a good research area that has much work to do. Just be cautious that you don't confuse mathematically interesting composition with quality artful composition.
I think that with enough information and proper rules in places, years from now software might be able to produce new and original quality music. But we are not even close to that.
Music is art. Many art classes will ask the students, "what is art?" In one class, the teacher started with what looked like a rough green 'w'. Few of the students thought it was art. It was rotated a quarter turn and suddenly appeared as the edge of a delicious-looking apple. The next image brought laughs from some Chinese students. The teacher asked before showing it for people to not tell if they knew it. When a few people suggested it was a dramatic star drawn on a dark sky, the teacher asked what it was and the Chinese students immediately answered it was the Chinese glyph for the number six.
Music is not just mathematical patterns, relationships between frequencies, harmonics, and tonal relationships. Visual art as well is not just about the patterns; some patterns are beautiful and evoke emotions, many are just noise.
Art (including both audio and visual) is about communication, usually the communication of emotion. Yes, computers can potentially make musical parts and replay what the rules specify, but there is a great deal of work needed before they produce novel evocative communications rather than somewhat interesting yet meaningless reconstructions.
For now there is no question that I would rather listen to David Garrett's reinterpretations of classics rather than a computer generated recomposition. I would also rather study the photographs of what each student selected for an alphabet photo assignment rather than just plugging each letter into Google and taking the first image. Hopefully ideas like yours will get us to the point where the algorithms can show us beauty and emotion, maybe someday, but I would not call today's constructions "good music". There is a long way to go.