Harnessing the Universal Geometry of Embeddings
ur-whale
65 points
24 comments
September 06, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 60.4ms across 5,720 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Warnock: Harnessing GPU geometry amplification for vector graphics coffeeaddict1 · 39 pts · August 25, 2026 · 55% similar
- Universality of Gradient Descent Neural Network Training E-Reverance · 24 pts · August 20, 2026 · 48% similar
- Some combinatorial applications of spacefilling curves shraiwi · 12 pts · July 25, 2026 · 47% similar
- Computation as a universal and fundamental concept simonpure · 114 pts · July 10, 2026 · 46% similar
- Mathematics in the age of AI jonbaer · 142 pts · August 19, 2026 · 43% similar
Discussion Highlights (6 comments)
measurablefunc
What is the (co)homology of this space?
nickledave
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44054425 Note this is version 4 of the paper and the original post was version 1 (I think?) OpenReview (for NeurIPS) for the curious: https://openreview.net/forum?id=jiCLUPq5xv
srean
Let's assume that monotonocity of pair-wise distances are preserved. Without knowing the details of how the paper solved the problem, my first attempt would be to find the diametrically distant pair of points in the two different embeddings and assume that the pair is the same pair. Then find the next distant pairs and so on. After sufficiently many such pairs have been found, or better still, the largest d-simplex is found, find that scaled rigid body transformation that makes the corresponding pairs coincide. Proceeding this way ought to be less work than solving a generic graph isomorphism problem.
ironSkillet
I am not familiar with the standards of publishing in machine learning, but as someone trained in a mathematics background, this paper seems relatively light on details and heavy on exposition. Is that typical? Is this a really novel idea? Not trying to be snarky, just trying to understand how meaningful this is.
rhelz
Cyberphrenology. In any two random graphs, you'll find an isomorphic graph which is can be up to log of the size of the graphs. And if the LLM has been trained up to the limit of what data it can hold, it is going to be random. Proof below if it isn't obvious. The entire effort of all people who are trying to understand how LLMs work, how they represent their data, its all bound to fail. Proof: a LLM is a very good approximation of the Solomonov/Levin/Kolmogorov universal probability function on tokens. As such, it will be random--pure white noise--because if you found any patterns in there, you could exploit the regularity and come up with a smaller set of weights for the same LLM. There are no patterns there to be found. They have all been factored out by training the neural net until it couldn't learn any more.
stephantul
I’ve never liked that this was called “the platonic representation hypothesis”. Lots of weird baggage attached and seems like a waste of a good name.