[elcomet]

It cannot explain because (1) it is not necessary to become good and (2) it wasn't explicitly trained to explain.

But it's reasonable to imagine a later model trained to explain things. The issue is that some positions might not be explainable, as they require branching too much and a lot of edge cases, so the explanation is not understandable by the human.

[wsdookadr]

It's unreasonable to give up on explanations and deem something "not understandable" when we've been doing this thing for 3000+ years called mathematics, where it's exactly explainability that we seek and the removal of doubt. The only other entities that we know of who can't communicate or explain what they're doing are animals.

[elcomet]

Can you explain your tastes? Why you prefer an apple to an orange for instance? Not really.

Can you explain how you had the intuition for a certain idea ? No you can explain why it works but not how the intuition came.

[wsdookadr]

This isn't a question of taste. The topic can't be trivialized to a choice between apples and oranges. I actually reject your entire last message.

[elcomet]

My point is that most of our actions are intuitive and cannot be explained. maybe this is similar to system 1 vs system 2.

[wsdookadr]

It's fine if you want to refer to Kahneman's classification [1] of instinctual and thorough thinking. Explainability is a separate topic. Also when the amount of energy and compute used are as high as they are.. the results, the return on investment really isn't that high. Hopefully there are better days ahead.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow