We have a lot of data we don't understand and we train a model to represent that data. The model represents the data very well, but we don't understand the mode

We have a lot of data we don't understand and we train a model to represent that data. The model represents the data very well, but we don't understand the model. So now we have a lot of data we don't understand and a model we don't understand. What new knowledge have we acquired? The OP is right to complain that there is no scientific knowledge gained by the mere act of modelling a poorly understood process, when the modelling is performed automatically and its results are also poorly understood. The goal of science is to gain knowledge of the processes in nature, not merely to predict their results. That's how science has advanced in the last few thousands of years and it's startling to see Nature and Science standing behind such a different idea of "science".