The human isn't a single core, 100% pegged on that task for those 20 minutes. Even actively working at something that energy consumption is likely to be less than 10% of that. There's a whole lot of energy being burned by the cardiovascular system, respiratory, digestive and renal, endocrine, muscular system (all that typing, moving and focusing of the eyes), and we haven't even got to the energy of the "OS" execution in the brain to control all that.
I don't think your numbers are the insight you think they are, nor accurate - not even particularly close.
We're neither disembodied brains nor bodies in isolation of basic needs like shelter or desires for energy-intensive conveniences, so I challenge that we should try to assess energy consumption in the way you're proposing. The outcome and the inputs required to get to it are the two relevant variables IMO.
Being consistent, though, I should've included the amortized cost of training and the energy cost of the rest of the data center to the 4o analysis. I don't think that those costs would be more than a factor constant greater.
When we can create disembodied brains that don't have needs for shelter and desires for energy-intensive conveniences, I buy that we can do 10% of the energy accounting.
The human isn't a single core, 100% pegged on that task for those 20 minutes. Even actively working at something that energy consumption is likely to be less than 10% of that. There's a whole lot of energy being burned by the cardiovascular system, respiratory, digestive and renal, endocrine, muscular system (all that typing, moving and focusing of the eyes), and we haven't even got to the energy of the "OS" execution in the brain to control all that.
I don't think your numbers are the insight you think they are, nor accurate - not even particularly close.