The AI Labyrinth: How Generative Models Navigate Knowledge

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new analysis reveals that generative AI isn’t just processing information, but actively exploring a high-dimensional space to create knowledge in a fundamentally geometric way.

This paper proposes ‘navigational knowledge’ as a framework for understanding generative AI, emphasizing the role of high-dimensional geometry and structural agency in knowledge production.

Unlike prior technological shifts where understanding preceded implementation, generative AI operates through opaque mechanisms demanding a new epistemological framework. ‘Epistemology of Generative AI: The Geometry of Knowing’ argues that this framework emerges from the geometric properties of high-dimensional spaces, where symbolic input is transformed into coordinates representing semantic parameters. This process yields a novel mode of knowledge-navigational knowledge-distinct from reasoning and statistical analysis, conceptualizing generative models as explorers of learned manifolds. But what are the broader implications of this shift for our understanding of knowledge itself, and how can we responsibly integrate these geometrically-driven systems into critical domains?

The Limits of Symbolic Representation

The foundation of much artificial intelligence research rests upon the Turing-Shannon-von Neumann paradigm, a system fundamentally built on manipulating discrete symbols. While remarkably effective at processing explicit knowledge – excelling in tasks requiring defined rules and readily available data – this approach often falters when confronted with the ambiguities of real-world understanding. This limitation isn’t a matter of processing power, but of representation; symbolic AI requires translating complex, nuanced information into rigid, pre-defined categories. Consequently, subtle variations, contextual cues, and implicit meanings-crucial for human comprehension-can be lost or misinterpreted. The system’s strength lies in its ability to perform logical operations on clearly defined inputs, but its weakness emerges when tasked with interpreting incomplete information, recognizing patterns beyond strict definitions, or adapting to unforeseen circumstances-areas where human intelligence operates with remarkable fluidity.

The conventional approach to artificial intelligence often separates meaning – semantics – from the computational process itself, effectively treating it as an external input rather than an integrated component. This externalization creates a significant bottleneck when tackling complex reasoning tasks, as the system struggles to inherently understand the information it processes. Consequently, ambiguous inputs – those with multiple possible interpretations or lacking clear definition – pose a considerable challenge; the AI is unable to leverage contextual cues or nuanced understanding to resolve uncertainty. Instead of dynamically interpreting meaning within the computational framework, the system relies on pre-defined rules and symbol manipulation, severely limiting its adaptability and hindering its ability to generalize beyond explicitly programmed scenarios.

The architecture of traditional artificial intelligence often represents information through discrete symbols, creating a fundamental challenge when dealing with the complexities of the real world. This symbolic approach struggles to capture the nuances inherent in continuous phenomena – things that change gradually and aren’t easily broken down into separate, defined categories. Consider, for example, the subtle variations in human emotion, the gradual shift in weather patterns, or the infinitely many shades between black and white. These continuous gradients are approximated by a finite set of symbols, leading to a loss of information and hindering the system’s ability to accurately model or respond to these subtleties. Consequently, the AI’s understanding of context – the surrounding information that gives meaning to a particular input – remains limited, impacting its capacity for robust and adaptable intelligence.

The inherent limitations of symbolic AI extend beyond simple computational hurdles, ultimately restricting its potential for genuine intelligence. Because these systems rely on predefined rules and discrete representations, they struggle with scenarios not explicitly programmed, exhibiting a fragility in the face of novelty. True generalization-the capacity to apply learned knowledge to unforeseen circumstances-requires a nuanced understanding of context and the ability to discern underlying patterns, something that externalizing semantics actively prevents. Consequently, these AI systems demonstrate a lack of robust intelligence; a small deviation from expected inputs, or a slightly ambiguous prompt, can lead to significant errors, highlighting their inability to adapt and reason effectively in the complexities of the real world. This constraint isn’t merely a matter of scaling up processing power, but a fundamental challenge stemming from the architecture itself.

Geometric Representation and the Emergence of Intelligence

Generative AI models utilize high-dimensional geometry by representing concepts as embedding vectors – numerical representations of data points in a multi-dimensional space. These vectors, often with dimensions exceeding 768, position semantically similar concepts closer to each other, thereby encoding relationships based on proximity. This geometric representation allows the model to discover and leverage complex, non-linear relationships within the data without explicit programming. The resulting high-dimensional space facilitates the emergence of patterns and associations organically, as the model learns to navigate and interpolate between these vector representations to generate new, coherent outputs. Essentially, the model doesn’t process concepts symbolically, but rather understands them through their spatial relationships within this geometric landscape.

Manifold Regularity in the context of generative AI refers to the tendency of high-dimensional embedding spaces to organize data points into lower-dimensional, smooth manifolds. These Learned Manifolds aren’t explicitly programmed; they emerge as a consequence of the model learning to represent similar concepts with proximity in the embedding space. This smoothness is crucial because it enables effective interpolation and generalization; points close together on the manifold represent semantically similar data, allowing the AI to generate novel, coherent outputs. The principle relies on the assumption that high-dimensional data, while complex, often possesses underlying low-dimensional structure, and the AI learns to discover and exploit this structure for efficient representation and manipulation of concepts.

High-dimensional spaces exhibit exponential directional capacity, meaning the number of unique directions available to represent data increases exponentially with each added dimension. This is not a linear increase; doubling the dimensionality more than doubles the representational capacity. Specifically, in a n-dimensional space, the number of potential directions grows as 2ⁿ. This characteristic enables Generative AI models to represent subtle differences in data and explore a vastly larger solution space than would be possible in lower dimensions. Consequently, the model can generalize beyond its training data, generating novel outputs and responding to previously unseen inputs by navigating this expanded geometric landscape.

Generative AI models utilizing embedding spaces of 768 dimensions or greater demonstrate a marked increase in performance due to the capacity of high-dimensional geometry. These spaces allow for the encoding of semantic information directly into the geometric relationships between embedding vectors; rather than relying on discrete symbolic representations, the model internalizes meaning through proximity and direction. This shift enables a more contextual understanding, allowing the AI to generalize beyond the specific training data and produce outputs that reflect nuanced relationships and dependencies not explicitly programmed, effectively moving beyond simple pattern matching to a form of embodied cognition within the vector space.

Indexicality, Spatial Relationships, and the Encoding of Meaning

Indexical signification in high-dimensional geometry operates by deriving meaning from an element’s location within a vector space, rather than through pre-assigned symbolic representation. Unlike traditional symbolic systems where meaning is inherent in the symbol itself, meaning here is relational and emergent. The position of a vector, defined by its coordinates, becomes the index that specifies its characteristics and relationships to other vectors. Consequently, similarity isn’t determined by an inherent property of the element, but by its proximity and orientation relative to others within the space; the coordinates themselves act as the signifying element, establishing meaning through their spatial arrangement. This contrasts with systems reliant on discrete, arbitrarily defined symbols, instead focusing on continuous, geometrically-defined relationships as the basis for semantic interpretation.

Traditional symbolic systems rely on arbitrary, predefined mappings between symbols and their referents, meaning is inherent in the symbol itself. In contrast, indexical signification, as described by Charles Sanders Peirce, posits that meaning arises from the relationship between a sign and its object. An index does not possess intrinsic meaning; instead, it points to something else through direct connection or association. This relational context is crucial; the meaning of an index is dependent on its position relative to other elements and the object it indicates. High-dimensional geometry facilitates this indexicality by creating a space where meaning is encoded not in the elements themselves, but in their spatial relationships and the patterns of connectivity within the space.

As the dimensionality of a vector space increases, the variance in the lengths (norms) of vectors tends to diminish, approaching zero. This phenomenon results from the increasing probability that vectors will be distributed more uniformly around the origin. Consequently, Euclidean distance becomes a less reliable metric for determining similarity; vectors are approximately equidistant from each other. This effectively nullifies distance as a primary indicator of relatedness and emphasizes the importance of relational context – specifically, the angles between vectors (cosine similarity) – in determining meaningful relationships within the high-dimensional space. [latex]||x||[/latex] represents the norm of vector x.

Structural Agency arises from the encoding of information within high-dimensional spaces, allowing systems to generate novel outputs via constrained movement through this space. This is predicated on the observation that, in these dimensions, randomly generated vectors tend towards orthogonality – exhibiting a cosine similarity approaching 0. This near-zero similarity indicates a default state of independence between random vectors, meaning any observed correlation arises not from inherent relatedness, but from the system’s traversal constraints which establish relational context and ultimately define the generated output. The system does not retrieve information, but produces it through this constrained navigation, effectively realizing agency within the structured space.

Towards a Constructive Intelligence: Learning, Adaptation, and Embodied Cognition

Seymour Papert’s influential theory of Constructionism, which posits that individuals learn best through actively building and exploring their environment, finds a compelling parallel in the cognitive principles of Indexical Signification and Navigational Knowledge. These principles suggest that understanding isn’t simply about receiving information, but about forming relationships between signs and their referents through direct interaction and spatial awareness. Just as a child learns about gravity by building towers and observing their collapse, an AI grounded in these principles doesn’t passively absorb data; it actively constructs its understanding of the world through embodied experience and the creation of internal “maps” of its surroundings. This emphasis on action and exploration allows for a more robust and adaptable form of intelligence, one that isn’t reliant on pre-programmed knowledge but capable of learning and generalizing from novel situations – effectively, building its own understanding from the ground up.

Current artificial intelligence often functions as a sophisticated form of data recall, passively storing and retrieving information. However, a shift towards ‘constructive AI’ proposes systems that actively build knowledge through ongoing interaction with a ‘Learned Manifold’ – a complex representation of the world derived from experience. This isn’t simply about accumulating more data, but about forming internal models that allow the AI to predict, simulate, and understand relationships. Through this process of active construction, the system moves beyond recognizing patterns to grasping underlying principles, enabling it to generalize to unseen scenarios and adapt to novel situations with a robustness exceeding that of purely data-driven approaches. This dynamic knowledge construction promises systems capable of not just knowing information, but of truly understanding it.

The capacity for adaptability and generalization represents a significant leap forward in artificial intelligence design. Rather than simply recognizing patterns within pre-defined datasets, this approach allows AI systems to construct internal models of the world, enabling them to extrapolate knowledge to previously unseen situations. This is achieved by prioritizing learning how to learn, fostering a robustness against ambiguity and novelty that traditional AI often lacks. Consequently, these systems are not merely reacting to stimuli, but actively interpreting and responding to unforeseen challenges with a degree of flexibility mirroring biological intelligence – a critical step towards creating AI capable of thriving in complex, real-world environments.

Advancing artificial intelligence beyond current limitations necessitates a fundamental shift towards prioritizing spatial reasoning and embodied cognition. Rather than simply processing information, future AI systems should actively map and interact with their environment, building an internal representation of space and physical relationships. This approach mirrors human intelligence, where understanding is deeply rooted in bodily experience and spatial awareness. By grounding AI in a “virtual body” and enabling it to learn through physical interaction-even simulated-systems can develop a richer, more robust understanding of the world, leading to enhanced problem-solving capabilities and genuine creative potential. This move away from purely symbolic computation promises AI that doesn’t just know information, but understands it in a way that allows for flexible adaptation, insightful generalization, and the emergence of truly novel solutions.

The exploration of generative AI, as detailed in the paper, reveals a system where knowledge isn’t simply represented but actively navigated. This mirrors a fundamental tenet of system design: structure dictates behavior. Dijkstra observed, “In moments of crisis, only structure is capable of saving us.” The paper’s emphasis on high-dimensional geometry and manifold learning demonstrates how the structure of these spaces-their inherent dimensionality and connectivity-enables generative AI to ‘explore’ and produce novel outputs. Just as a well-defined structure provides resilience in a crisis, the geometric structure of the AI’s knowledge space defines its capacity for innovation and adaptation, offering a new understanding of ‘navigational knowledge’ beyond traditional symbolic reasoning.

Where to Next?

The notion of ‘navigational knowledge’ – knowledge derived not from symbolic manipulation, but from the experience of traversing high-dimensional space – suggests a fundamental re-evaluation is needed. If generative AI truly operates on these principles, the current emphasis on explainability risks becoming a category error. Attempting to translate geometric intuition into linear, symbolic logic is akin to charting the ocean with a ruler. The system survives on duct tape, it’s probably overengineered.

A critical path forward lies in abandoning the search for ‘meaning’ within the generated output and instead focusing on the structural properties of the manifold itself. Manifold learning offers tantalizing possibilities, but modularity without context is an illusion of control. Understanding the invariants – the aspects of the space that remain constant under transformation – may prove more fruitful than chasing fleeting semantic content.

Ultimately, the geometry of knowing isn’t about finding the shortest path to a pre-defined answer, but about discovering the shape of the question. Further research must address the inherent limitations of projecting these high-dimensional spaces onto human-comprehensible representations. The challenge is not to make AI ‘understand’ like humans, but to appreciate the radically different forms of intelligence that may emerge from a fundamentally geometric substrate.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.17116.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

The Limits of Symbolic Representation

Geometric Representation and the Emergence of Intelligence

Indexicality, Spatial Relationships, and the Encoding of Meaning

Towards a Constructive Intelligence: Learning, Adaptation, and Embodied Cognition

Where to Next?

See also: