When extravagant claims are made that AI can replace human beings, it cheapens humanity and obfuscates a clear understanding of ourselves. Wittgenstein’s ideas help us to see that AI is a confused fantasy. His anti-philosophy helps protect us from ourselves.
This is quite true but Wittgenstein only approaches what language is when fully formed. In fact, he does not see it is a growing mental virtual organism that grows along with the mind from the need to communicate with the direct human environment to simply survive as a newborn and then exist — hence survive — in the human community he is living in. The various physiological elements needed to produce language (at the time of the emergence of Homo Sapiens 300,000 years ago) were naturally selected among all the mutations possible happening haphazardly in Homo Sapiens because they made him or her a fast long-distance bipedal runner, which was necessary to hunt in the savanna in Black Africa originally. These physiological characteristics, it so happens, enable Homo Sapiens with speaking an articulated language that he or she, they for sure, had to invent entirely because they inherited little as for communication skills from their ancestors, though probably more than we may think, at least from the great migrator Homo Erectus. You cannot migrate long-distance if you cannot communicate and organize your life on a communal basis. There are three such linguistic articulations and the only one Wittgenstein is speaking of is the third one, in fact, the matrix of it which is the basic matrix of any communicational situation modulated by the communicational environment. This matrix provides Homo Sapiens, 300,000 years ago or a newborn today, with what will be the syntax of his/her/their discourse. But Wittgenstein could not know all that because he respected the command from the Paris Linguistic School that a linguist must not ask the question of the origin of language. That command was fundamentalistic and absolutely anti-scientific. The banned question is just starting to be really asked, though the first linguist who approached the question, only approached, was Gustave Guillaume with his theory of the three areas of language in the 1950s and very early 1960s. Today we can finally imagine and construct the phylogeny of human language from the start 300,000 years ago and its phylogenetic evolution up to today. And phylogeny means here the structural inner evolution of language in its own inner growth and it has nothing to do with biological genes that would be a black box or an innate form of this language, or these languages, and what’s more of this discourse or these discourses.