This is a misreading of the law. Court cases say that AI cannot own copyright, not that AI output cannot be copyrighted.
replyNo, according to everything I've read before, the parent post was correct and you're not. This article clearly says "art generated by artificial intelligence without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law":
replyhttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-co...
If you’re referring to Thaler v. Perlmutter, that is not binding precedent nationwide, only in courts under the D.C. Circuit. And it only applies to “pure” AI-generated works; it did not address AI-assisted works, which seem very likely to be copyrightable.
replyThough here, the purpose is still served.
replyIf I want to clone some GPL clone into a MIT license, if it ends up in the public domain because it can't be copyrighted, what do I care? I've still got the code I want without the GPL.