No, it's incorrect and/or badly worded. The author is right that a machine cannot author things, and the stuff that the LLM might create de novo would not have copyright protection. But it's missing the point when the argument is that existing authored works could be generated via an LLM, and the authorship/copyright is already established.

> the stuff that the LLM might create de novo would not have copyright protection

Can you expand on this? From my academic studies (which are indeed growing a bit stale) a Language Model (Large, Medium, Small doesn't matter) is a deterministic machine. Give the same x input n times it will produce the same output y, n times. Some implementations of LM:s might introduce noise to randomise output, but that is not intrinsic to all LM:s.

A language model has no volition, no intent, it does not start without the intervention of a human (or another machine if it is a part of an automated chain).

How is this different compared to a compiler?

With a compiler I craft something in a specific language, often a programming language, I commit it, then a long chain of automated actions happen:

1. The code gets automatically pushed to a repository by my machine

2. The second machine automatically runs tests and fuzzes

3. The second machine automatically compiles binaries

4. The second machine packages the binaries

5. The second machine publishes the binaries to a third machine

How is the above workflow any different from someone using a Language Model to craft something in a specific language and send it through a deterministic LM?

edit re-reading my own question, I think I need to clarify a bit: How can an LLM be said to create anything, and if yes, how is that really any different from a run-of-the-mill developer workflow?