There's a subtle distinction which is probably important to seperate the two situations: The case referenced in that article (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/...) is to do with the output of a program which has a specific intended input (the text of the Torah) and a completely deterministic output from that input (a bunch of matrixes of a 'bible code'), and the argument is that therefore the output is essentially already represented by the input and the program, and because the output is an inevitable result of the program (which is copyrighted), and the input (which is public domain), the writer of the program has copyright over the output as well. Compare with generative art (even pre-AI) where the output is based on a random seed and any given output is not an completely inevitable result of running the program. In this case the US copyright office at least claims that there is no human authorship, by the writer of the program or by the prompter (at least if the prompter takes no further action with the generated output):

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

This is of course up for interpretation by a judge (though I think the US copyright office refusing registration may make it de-facto impossible to get it in front of a judge, as I think it's a requirement to actually bring a suit against someone for infringement), but I suspect this is the kind of distinction that they will consider regarding this particular precedent.