Cute. Now try quantifying that argument. How much data needs to be considered / collected to make each incremental improvement? Does that grow over time, and how fast? What is the failure rate (chance a change makes you dumber not smarter)? What is the critical failure rate (chance a change makes you permanently incapacitated)? How much testing and analysis is required to confidently have a low critical error rate?

When you look at it as an engineer not a philosopher, the answers are not so obvious.