That seems untrue. In this case, the author set out with a specific goal, then tried to do it, and then succeded.
What are you suggesting, that the author lied in the blog post and actually worked backwards, post hoc? Seems incredibly unlikely based on the details they wrote.
You must have misunderstood what was intended to be expressed. I will reformulate.
"Pleasant" is not necessarily the goal. The goal may be "artistic", which implies some inner logic that the artist intends to express; the goal may be "communicative", which implies that the creator will focus on the effectiveness of the thought-structure presentation.
There is an amount of knowledge that is in the professional that may not be codified for explicit fruition in the machine. This may for example suggest that the knowledgeable author will want a very high degree of control on the output, as the details are involved in his intention - so, he will not leave much space for random randomness.
The z-movies director will shout "cut, good, keep this, next" very frequently; Kubrick will shoot scenes in dozens of takes, even over a hundred. Apprentices in music will explore; Hollis directed authentic professional musicians for very long sessions looking for specific qualities in results, and could delete entire parts for being imperfect or alien, while even excessively nice.
Perfectionist authors are demanding in all sides of creation. (And delegation, as said above, not just detail, will not be left to randomness.)
What are you suggesting, that the author lied in the blog post and actually worked backwards, post hoc? Seems incredibly unlikely based on the details they wrote.