I do not read it that way at all. The Goldsmith decision mainly turns on the idea that an artist protections include that for derivative works. Warhol produced a work that does substantially the same things as Goldsmith's, ie, is a picture that can be viewed.

When talking about parody, they note that the usage as the foundation for parody is always substantially different from the original and thereby allowed, even if it would otherwise infringe. LLMs are always substantially different from the original, too.

If I want to write software that draws that picture exactly, the code would not be a copyright violation. It is text and cannot be printed in a magazine as a picture. If I used it to print a picture that was a derivative work and sold that, it might be.

A large language model has no intersection with the picture or, for that matter, anything that it absorbs. It is possible that someone might figure out how to prompt it to do exactly the same picture as Goldsmith did but fairly unlikely.

Unless you could show that this was easy, common and part of the intent of the LLM creator, I can see no possibility that it is infringing.