possibly under the current law. when it comes to, say, lab-grown meat, there are specific, patented processes for doing that which can produce a specific result that could possibly be copyrighted. I think it would be hard to argue in court that it’s a “creative work”, but maybe? it wouldn’t surprise me if some particularly unscrupulous company made an attempt to do so.
well, if you really want to get specific, it’s because large corporations with a vested interest in maintaining and consolidating IP rights for as long as possible while neglecting small artists and individuals were the ones in charge of writing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and then the US strong-armed most of the rest of the world into adopting most or all of it via compliance by means of a great many treaties, trade deals, etc. in the wake of 9/11 and the expanding militarization during the “War on Terror” at the time. it was pretty underhanded.
Or, in other words: capitalism screwed the little people, and we’re still paying the price.
As a designer, there is a limited purpose to use generative graphics as assets in a composition for various purposes. I might want to generate a cloud background, or perhaps a small object to use here or there. Certainly not an entire composition, because they always come out bizarre or warped, or having some sort of weird hallucination in them. But generative AI can create, for example, a flower, or a building to be used in background, or to cover up an empty space. Once you place that item, then I would have to go in and touch it up a bit to make it look like it fits and adjust the lighting and fix any weird quirks that might have, but it’s a lot better than having to have a photographer go out and take a photo of it or to pay for a stock photo of it and license that plus every problem that comes with that.
So generative AI tools in Photoshop, for example, can end up saving a lot of time and effort and money for licensing stock photos, especially when I only need a portion of it, but it doesn’t comprise but a small portion of an entire composition. 
yeah, I’m sue they’ll all be in perfect condition, too. nothing smashed, no hard drives mysteriously erased or “dropped”… oh, and can they bring that old lady back to life? no? yeah, well… it’s just a life, right?
The article itself says otherwise (if you read it, you’d know), but clearly you must stubbornly defend your incorrect position.
if it did, you’d have no problem quoting where it said so rather than hurling insults because I’m not stupid enough to believe your fallacious assertions.
Using a story about a small, local media outlet as a platform to rant about the problems with mass media just shows your tenuous grasp on the situation and your underlying agenda here. You’re in no position to start making accusations as to who here read or understood what.
Excuse me if I find your criticism disingenuous and as duplicitous as the criticism you accuse the media of having when you admit this small media outlet isn’t responsible for doing the thing you go on to be critical of yet continue to use it as a platform for your criticism regardless. 
possibly under the current law. when it comes to, say, lab-grown meat, there are specific, patented processes for doing that which can produce a specific result that could possibly be copyrighted. I think it would be hard to argue in court that it’s a “creative work”, but maybe? it wouldn’t surprise me if some particularly unscrupulous company made an attempt to do so.
we very badly need IP law reform.