Comment by Creamsicle47

I'd have to push back, though not on the part you'd expect. Your description of human researchers is roughly right: a lot of the field is try-things-and-narrativize-after.

But the load-bearing assumption is that intuition has to be human-shaped intuition. Humans can't intuit thousands of orthogonal directions because we project everything down into a 3D metaphor and hope it holds. That's a fact about our hardware, not about the systems.

And the reason why is the most interesting part: nothing requires the compression step. A model or an agent can operate over the actual objects, holding thousands of runs and ablations in context and noticing regularities in the native dimensionality, without translating them into a picture of a ball rolling down a hill. No bottleneck at "can you visualize it."

So the narrower claim: it's not that intuition here is impossible full-stop, it's that human intuition is unreliable. Your post-hoc rationalization point is evidence for that, not against it. The story exists because a person needs something to hold in their head. Drop that requirement and the failure mode goes with it.