I mean, you are describing modern copyright.

But copyright is an example of something where the US Constitution, at least, explicitly says its purpose is to "promote" something:

[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I like how straightforward the Copyright Clause is. It even gives a testable standard. The length of "exclusive Right" for IP should be the "limited" length of time that "promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

So, the plain reading here is that IP laws need to give exclusivity long enough to encourage creation, by making authors and inventors think it is worth the time and money investment, but not so long that they discourage creation, for example, where a person doesn't create something because they are afraid of violating IP laws.

Originally, in the US, copyright lasted 14 years, with an option for renewing for 14 more years, and this is one example where I think they got it about right.

Limited copyright encourages sharing. This is why patents are good. The problem occurs when the lifespan of the protection is too favourable to a non creator owner.

Protections held as an asset by a corporation do little to encourage innovation.

Without copyright, little creators would get no chance to make money. It would all go to capitalists.

I don't really see anything here arguing that AI generated works are copyrightable. It would probably help if the article actually mentioned what it was in response to, because that's a pretty important thing to just gloss over. But it sounds to me like it's saying that copyright protections don't need to be strengthened even more than they already are, just because companies are afraid that they will make less profits because of ai existing.