1. Copyright is generally held in "works of authorship", which is to say, the work of an author. Whether or not a computer program (AI or otherwise) is an author is the first question in this case.[2]
2. Copyright law provides protection against unauthorised copying of a work. Independent creation is not a copyright violation, for all those who've suggested composig all possible (or for the more efficiently-minded, probable) works of a given length. If another party independently creates a similar work (in whole or part), there is no copyright violation.
3. Copyright persists only in expression and not in the meaning or function of a work. This is in particular contrast to patent and trade secrets law.
The Chinese ruling, as described, fails multiple tests and would not qualify under present general copyright law. Though the possibility of the law changing given changing uses and practices does exist. I don't expect in the near term that this case will have much significance.
By way of highlighting the ... interesting dynamics ... posed by increasing use of AI in creating content -- various systems creating de novo faces, images, audio, or video, as well as text, as examples -- does give some pause. What are the implications of creating such content via AI where the content itself is entirely outside the scope of copyright law?
________________________________
Notes:
1. US-centric, though generally applying to WIPO / Berne rules. Not legal advice.
2. 17 USC 102(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102