An innovative solution originating with a human almost always involves far more time investments, including long periods (days, weeks) of ostensibly unfocused time that is used productively by our brains, recent high focus in the problem area, and far more try-and-fail passes, providing significant specific feedback.
Also, human insights are often preceded by years of self-directed puzzling over relevant relationships or subjects.
Without some strong correspondence in problem solving contexts, comparisons are not really model vs. human, but typical model use (tremendous restrictions placed on them) vs. atypical (best of breed) human self-direction. Not a true "capability" comparison. More of a "result" comparison between extremes of contexts.
Pick a random human, random SOTA and random problem with any significance, and give the human and SOTA the same time resources, and I suspect the model will do better with very high confidence.