that's not a statement from a lawyer, and it's confused. there is one true thing in there which is that at least under US considerations the LLM output may not be copyrightable due to insufficient human involvement, but the rest of the implications are poorly extrapolated.

there are lots of portions of code today, prior to AI authorship, that are already not copyrightable due to the way they are produced. the existence of such code does not decimate the copyright of an overall collective work.