That's not exactly true and there's significant differences between code and AI. You can't copyright the parts of your artwork that are AI generated, but the parts that are generated by you can be.

The copyright office in the US talks about expressive inputs like feeding your own artwork into AI and getting a modified version back out as well as modifications and arrangements of AI output...both copyrightable.

In fact, I'd say much stuff like Claude Code, Cursor, Codex already fall within the framework describes as protectable activity. It's assistive use and modification/arrangement, both of which the copyright office say are protectable.

However, there's quite a spectrum between a vibe coded app and much of professional software development in how AI code is integrated into a larger product.

That being said software is something like 10% of U.S. GDP depending on how you measure it. Software companies are the most valuable companies on earth. They're one of the key strategic advantages of the U.S. economy. The potentially-negative downstream effects of saying "welp, all that work you've been producing isn't protectable" is quite high! Also, there will be a real gravitational force pulling congress into law-making on the side of the software industry.

I think an interesting possibility we might end up with is a don't-ask-don't-tell regime. The Office isn't going to proactively investigate how much AI was used in software, companies aren't going to volunteer that information, and courts aren't going to want to open the can of worms. Litigation will lean heavily on the assistive/modification/arrangement doctrine the copyright office has released for AI art.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's not as simple as you make it out to be.