I wouldn't say this example surpasses all humans. It surpasses most humans and matches those trained in poetry and in illustration. Where it does definitively excel is timing. Both the poem and the pictures were generated in less than a minute. No human can create that quickly ever. Even the best of us cannot match that in speed.
Speed is not the measure of creativity. I don't think anyone will deny that machines can do some things way faster than humans; this has little to do with AI in particular.
I don't think this "poem" matches or surpasses most humans trained in poetry.
I don't have to provide anything. I mean, there's a huge body of poetry (that this LLM was trained on, by the way) to compare it to. Pick poetry you like, and compare it to this one. You'll see the difference in quality.
Speed is not a measure of creativity but it is a critical factor in the generation of evidence.
In that respect it is beating your argument on all counts.
You don't have to provide anything. But it makes your argument weaker if you can't generate better works of creativity from the given prompt.
Let's stick to the dynamic prompt. The point is to choose a prompt that will create works that don't exist. We don't want the LLM or the artist in question copying anything that already exists. Proof of creativity requires an actual live demonstration of it.
What I mean is that the OP's prompt to the LLM is creative, not the LLM's output. The LLM's output just expounds on the human's prompt so the poem it generated is clearly not an example of creativity.
I wouldn't say this example surpasses all humans. It surpasses most humans and matches those trained in poetry and in illustration. Where it does definitively excel is timing. Both the poem and the pictures were generated in less than a minute. No human can create that quickly ever. Even the best of us cannot match that in speed.