A common response to the limitations of structural accounts is to relocate meaning into use.
On this view:
- meaning is not an internal property,
- nor a feature of structure alone,
but:
something that arises in practice—through use, behaviour, and interaction.
Applied to LLMs, the claim becomes:
- the model uses language appropriately,
- participates in discourse,
- and produces context-sensitive responses.
Therefore:
its outputs are meaningful because they function meaningfully.
This position avoids:
- naive attribution of inner states,
- and reductive appeals to structure alone.
It grounds meaning in:
observable activity.
1. The Strength of the Appeal
The appeal to use captures something real.
LLMs do:
- respond appropriately to prompts,
- adapt to context,
- maintain coherence across turns,
- and fulfil communicative roles.
From the outside, this looks indistinguishable—at least locally—from meaningful participation.
Meaning, in human contexts, is inseparable from:
- how language is used,
- how it functions in interaction,
- and how it coordinates activity.
So the move is natural:
if it behaves meaningfully, it is meaningful.
2. The Hidden Assumption
This move depends on an implicit equivalence:
use = meaning.
Or more precisely:
appropriate behaviour is sufficient for meaning.
But this equivalence is not established.
It is assumed.
3. Behaviour Without “As”
Use consists of:
- producing outputs in response to inputs,
- adjusting behaviour based on context,
- and aligning with expectations.
This is:
- observable,
- describable,
- and functionally effective.
But none of this, by itself, requires:
that anything is taken as anything.
Behaviour can be:
- appropriate,
- effective,
- and well-coordinated,
without involving:
- construal.
4. The Distinction Reasserted
The distinction must be held:
- value:what works, what is effective, what matters in action
- meaning:what is construed as something within a semiotic organisation
Use belongs to the first.
It describes:
- success,
- coordination,
- and functional alignment.
It does not, by itself, establish:
semiotic organisation.
5. Why Function Is Not Meaning
The fact that an utterance:
- produces an appropriate response,
- fits the context,
- or achieves a goal,
does not entail:
- that it is meaningful in itself.
It entails:
that it functions within a system of activity.
Function can be described entirely in terms of:
- inputs and outputs,
- conditions and effects,
- coordination and outcome.
Meaning cannot.
6. The Illusion of Participation
Because LLMs participate in discourse, it is tempting to treat them as:
- participants in meaning-making.
But participation here is:
- behavioural,
- not semiotic.
The system produces outputs that:
- fit into human practices,
- and are taken up by human interpreters.
This creates the appearance of:
shared meaning.
But the sharing occurs:
- on the side of the interpreters,
- not within the model.
7. Use as Condition, Not Ground
Use is indispensable.
Without use:
- meaning does not manifest,
- language does not function,
- communication does not occur.
But use is a condition for meaning, not its ground.
It provides:
- the context in which meaning is realised,
not:
the mechanism by which meaning is constituted.
8. Reframing LLM Behaviour
Under constraint, we can state:
LLMs produce behaviour that is functionally aligned with human language use.
This explains:
- their effectiveness,
- their adaptability,
- and their integration into communicative practices.
But it does not entail:
- that they construe anything as anything.
9. Where Meaning Actually Occurs
Meaning arises when:
- outputs are taken up within a semiotic organisation,
- and construed as meaningful by participants.
The model contributes:
- structured output,
- functionally appropriate behaviour.
But the construal:
is not located in the behaviour itself.
Closing Formulation
Behaviour does not construe.
Use describes what works—how outputs function within a system of activity.But meaning requires that something is taken as something.
No degree of appropriate use,no matter how refined,produces construal on its own.
This removes the second fallback:
- meaning is not secured by use alone.
At this point, two collapses have been blocked:
- structure ≠ meaning
- use ≠ meaning
What remains is the most persistent assumption:
that meaning must be somewhere inside the system.
Next Post
“No Interpreter Inside: Why Internal States Do Not Construe”
No comments:
Post a Comment