One person need not completely understand something for it to have value; it's sufficient for there to exist a shared understanding. an LLM might e.g. break so

One person need not completely understand something for it to have value; it's sufficient for there to exist a shared understanding. an LLM might e.g. break some cryptographic algorithm in a way utterly unintelligible to humans, but the fact that it works would be sufficient on its own to make all of us choose to abandon that algorithm and choose different ones. No, that is the entire point. If it is an algorithm which accomplishes something useful, then it is intelligible as such. That which is incomprehensible cannot be understood even in part, so it provides no value as a bit of knowledge (unless you're looking for a strong random number source, I suppose).