> Does this stuff make sense to other people?

Nope, and I actually learned about application of category theory to programming language in university.

I tried to get an idea about the main points, and then stumbled over

> a thing is what you can observe of it. > > [...] > > Content addressing is extensionality made physical (chapter 11): two values indistinguishable by observation are not merely equal, they are the same slot

That only works in a category because you have enough (a countably or uncountably infinite number) functions that you can compose and "test" so you don't need (or don't care) about the "value" itself.

But on a real computer that doesn't work, because you can't go beyond a countable number, and even then you run into the halting problem pretty soon. So equality in this model is not computable. Which is sort of bad if you want to somehow store values "in the same slot" just based on observability. It might work for string literals, and even for concatenated strings, but not in general.

Picking some random lattice (a lattice is a partially ordered structure with some extra conditions) as a base of addressing doesn't help...

So yes, crackpot AI slop. The words sort of make sense, but there's nothing solid behind it, and as soon as you look at details it falls apart.