I think any legal theory that must equate people with machines to prove its point is dead in any real court. Laws are made by people for people, to protect people's interests, so the analogy is just about as effective as requiring a human to work 16 hours because a horse can, and both operate on similar principles.

Of course everything a human learns and produces is a derivative of real world input, some of it copyrighted. But people agreed that this transformation is a form of fair use, as long as the derived work is sufficiently creative - where the key implicit assumption is that creativity is a human ability that warrants protection. Both the creator and the learner enjoy protection because they are human.

In the AI case, the output of a program will certainly not receive protection by default - it will be protected only as a consequence of its human creator or user rights. It doesn't really matter how transformative and analogous to the human mind the program is, the output only deserves protection solely for its unique human created parts - the internal working and the extent of the craft embedded in a GPT3 text prompt. The first is unrelated directly to the work produced, and the second is laughable vs the artworks embedded in the model.

If in the future AI advances to the point where it can be granted natural rights, this could change, but we are far far from that point.