2
2day
2

The Grothendieck’s Toposes as the Future Mathematics of AI

https://medwinpublishers.com/PhIJ/the-grothendiecks-toposes-as-the-future-mathematics-of-ai.pdf

The paper argues that we are hitting a wall with current AI because we are obsessed with number crunching instead of structure.

Belabes posits that modern AI is too focused on statistical minimization and processing speed, which reduces everything to collections of numbers that inherently lack meaning. You lose the essence of what you are actually trying to model when you strip away the context to get raw data. The author suggests a pivot to Alexandre Grothendieck's Topos theory, which provides a mathematical framework for understanding geometric forms and preserving the deep structure of data rather than just its statistical number crunching.

Topos theory focuses on finding a new style space that acts as a bridge between different mathematical objects. Instead of just looking at points in a standard space, a topos allows us to look at the relationships and sheaves of information over that space, effectively letting us transfer invariants from one idea to another. It creates a way to connect things that seem totally unrelated on the surface by identifying their common essence. Belabes links this to the idea of conceptual strata where something that looks like noise or insignificant data in one layer might actually be critical structure in another layer. It's a move away from the binary notion of significant versus insignificant data and toward a relativistic view where significance depends on the conceptual layer you are analyzing.

The author uses literary examples like Homer and Dostoevsky to show that authentic meaning often precedes the words used to express it, whereas our current digital systems treat language as a closed loop where words define other words. Current AI essentially simulates discourse without the underlying voice or intent. By adopting a Topos-based approach, we might be able to build systems that respect these layers of meaning and read slowly to extract the actual shape of the information. It is basically a call to stop trying to brute force intelligence with bigger matrices and start modeling the actual geometry of thought.

solrize - 2day

This looks like vague handwaving. I don't see a mathematical idea there.

2
technocrit @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 19hr

As a "mathematician"... Yeah this is phony AF. Typical "AI" bullshit.

The field of application of Grothendieck’s toposes goes beyond the strictly mathematical framework. It makes it possible to connect literary works, which seem at first glance to have nothing in common, as evidenced by the connection between Homer’s The Iliad, Kurāʿ’s al-Muntakhab and Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot. This connection could in turn enrich research on topos, if it is taken seriously as an archeology [20], which invites to deepen the knowledge of things beyond binary oppositions to explore how things are formed

lmao. fraud. Foucault is cool and all, but dude was not writing about categories and sheaves. Not even close.

With Poincaré, we discover that building a bridge between things –a topos– can arise from an intuition

lol no. They can't just call anything a "topos". That's not how math works. This paper is entertaining but that's about it.

2