Nothing shows this is "the end of copyright as we know it".
What is shown is that in 99% of cases AI-generated content cannot be captured under copyright law.
However, that is a problem for the different industries because that means they cannot capture these new revenue streams to which they feel entitled.<p>What I find extremely troubling is that they're using language like "copyright reform" similar to what you'd hear from EFF or other copyright activists, masquerading as ethical protection for artists or things of the sort.
Except that they are not really addressing the inconsistencies that the "digital property" concept entail; it cannot make sense from a logical standpoint, so it's just a kludge.
So, "artistic interpolation", which has always been available to semi-skilled artists, becomes the argument for a new fully totalitarian view of copyright.<p>The entertainment industry was basically entirely built on top of pilfered public domain culture. It's constantly providing artists with abusive contracts, when it's not doing much worse, e.g. Harvey Weinstein.
It seems to me that all this is a show of crocodile tears to justify a new massive capture of what falls under copyright to be able to rent-seek in perpetuity.