I tried reading that article, but for a topic that I find interesting (especially as someone who has studied AI and machine learning) I hoped it would be more a

I tried reading that article, but for a topic that I find interesting (especially as someone who has studied AI and machine learning) I hoped it would be more approachable and easier to read. Can anyone explain the last few sentences for me? >The increasing sophistication of generative software and the reality that all creativity is algorithmic compel recognition that AI-authored works are less heterogeneous to both their human counterparts and existing copyright doctrine than appearances may at first suggest. AI authorship is readily assimilable to the current copyright framework through the work made for hire doctrine, which is a mechanism for vesting copyright directly in a legal person who is acknowledged not to be the author-in-fact of the work in question. Through this legal fiction, the machinic creativity of generative code can be recognized for what it really is—something other than (but owing to) the human creativity of its coder