> in my opinion, having to convince your tools is not computer science.

If you think the system is a tool and not an intelligent, conscious entity (I think you are correct in this), then you cannot reasonably think of input to that system as an attempt at persuasion, even if that input happens to consist of English prose. Treat it as a nondeterministic programming language, and the objection evaporates.

> not really being able to explain how the human brain does it's most amazing tricks and then we just replicated it while still not really understanding the emergent capabilities

I think you could say much the same about, say, a pacemaker. "Replicated" is overstating the case quite a bit.