No, the point of the ruling is that given an arbitrary amount of data, if a machine can generate the "invention" (in the patent sense) then you cannot patent it

No, the point of the ruling is that given an arbitrary amount of data, if a machine can generate the "invention" (in the patent sense) then you cannot patent it. Claiming that you invented the thing because you setup the AI would render the ruling meaningless. The whole point is the machine is mechanically converting a pile of data into a "invention", and it does not matter where the data comes from. When the machine does that, you personally did not, and when you claim in a patent application that you invented a thing, you're saying that you did the thinking or reasoning or whatever. Otherwise your teachers could wait for you to come up with an patentable idea and patent it claiming that it was their invention. Either the AI is conscious and alive, etc, etc in which case you're the teacher in the argument (and can't claim to be an inventor but rather a slave owner) or it's a mechanical device operating over data and producing a functionally deterministic result (the randomness in "AI" is artificially added solely to produce the appearance of non-deterministic output) in which case there's no invention: anyone could put the same data in and get the same thing out so on.