[maest]

It's interesting to see how super advanced ML-based engines have changed the field of chess in recent years - top engines are way better than top humans, so, in a sense, act as oracles.

Top players routinely use them in preparation, to study new lines, get hints about what moves make sense in a position and also to generate new ideas or tweak the principles they apply in the game. The engines don't explain their reasoning, but provide something closer to the "correct" move in any given position. It's up to the humans to do the legwork and understand _why_ the recommended move is strong.

Clearly, chess is not real life, but the impact of these oracle engines has been broadly positive (with the exception of using engines to cheat in online play).

[lokischild]

This is a good example, because Chess rules do not surpass human intellectual capacity. With enough time, you can understand the reasoning of an AI.

But when it comes to raw intellectual superiority, say, explain the logic behind new mathematical or physical concepts and discoveries, very high level predictions, we come to our human limit and cannot surpass it.

The AI can give us implants to improve our intelligence, but only to a certain limited degree, our biological brain will slow us down significantly.

That is the barrier we cannot possibly cross in a timespan of human life.