My understanding is the ruling actually says the copyright cannot be granted to the AI. But that might not mean a human cannot claim copyright for AI art.

Assuming the AI has a vast number of outputs, many which are uninteresting; a human can select a few outputs as being worthy of being called art or suitable for their purposes.

So an AI can create an image, but the process of selection constitutes an editorial process, and a person can the claim copyright for images they generate and choose to distribute.

This seems to be somewhat similar to copyrighting a found object as art, or taking a photo of a building and owning the copyright to that. It would not make sense to give the copyright to the camera, which is what this ruling confirms.