> 1000 variants of existing art.

This is very naive. I can almost guarantee that some combinations of 20 * 50 features will hit on something that has never been written before in that specific combination. And if that's still not enough, increase the number of features. Add more randomness, add more steering, add random steering in random chapters, change it up, and so on.

I'm an art director. Finding a sequence that hasn't been hit in that specific combination is not sufficient to justify paying someone $150 an hour to go be creative.

> Add more randomness, add more steering, add random steering in random chapters, change it up, and so on.

That doesn't work for AI models. The whole training process depends on the basic principle that if you take the average of 100, in this case book cover designs, that the average is less like randomness than any individual cover you've used to make your average.

So the output will, by necessity, be closer to the average.

The human learning algorithm is much, much more data efficient than models. A absolute top human expert will have read/seen/heard/talked/... about 160 million "tokens" (that's about 2000 books). Frankly, the nerve inputs of all experiences of an entire human life, from baby to rewriting relativity theory, are only a couple dozen gigabytes.

Qwen 3.6 27B has been trained (as in seen ~10 to ~50 times) 8 trillion tokens, or to put it another way: for every second you will have spent "gathering life experiences" (ie. your whole life) on your deathbed Qwen 3.6 27B has spend about 50.000 seconds learning. And really that figure should be multiplied by the 10 or 50 training iterations.

Add another 3 or so orders of magnitude and you've got ChatGPT. By this measure, the human brains outperforms ridiculously overspecced ML models (because that's what ChatGPT and the like are) in efficiency a factor of by 5 million or more. This is the reason humans are still faster than ML models.

As for human training iterations: we can be simple: it's 1. In fact, it's impossible to make it even 2. Of course, when it comes to human performance: we are a better but not fundamentally different version of genetic algorithms. Do most humans perform? The honest answer is no. 1 in 1000, and that's very generous, improves SOTA. You absolutely need the 1000 failures though, as anyone whose tried a PhD (or even just design a large program) knows.

So we are very far away from allowing AI models to do what humans can do: take one example and produce, from one example, a better output. And there will always be much more variation in that approach. But ... most human attempts to do something are total crap. Most AI attempts to do something will succeed, but they'll be comparatively be bland, tasteless, "without soul", ...

And this is ignoring the problem that AI also has a massive limitation (that can't be solved, no matter how many nvidia cards you have) in that it trains against historical data. And counterfactuals don't work. What would have happened had Shakespeare decided Macbeth's wife was a force for good? Would the king still get murdered? Would it still be a great story? You can't work with counterfactuals.