There was a widely-misunderstood lawsuit recently that lots of people interpreted this way, but it wasn't what the lawsuit concluded at all.
"Creations of a machine" is meaningless. Machines are tools we use to be creative, even if we're getting some things out that we do not expect. When a 3D program renders light into a scene, does that mean the image is not copyrightable?
I was referring to the recent case against the artist Stephen Thaler, which people interpreted [1] as saying that works created by AI could not be copyrighted. This wasn't what was shown, though. Rather, the judge was ruling about a strawman argument framed by Thaler, where he explicitly stated that he was not the creator, and that he was listing the AI as an "artist for hire."
I don't see where in your link it says, as GP did, that "creations of a machine [...] are not eligible for copyright protection."
The guidance says that the author must be human, but that "In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.”
The latter is copyrightable.
"This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. "
"Creations of a machine" is meaningless. Machines are tools we use to be creative, even if we're getting some things out that we do not expect. When a 3D program renders light into a scene, does that mean the image is not copyrightable?