CONCEPT
Rule-Following
Wittgenstein's demonstration that following a rule is a practice, not a mental act — and the philosophical foundation for the claim that AI systems produce the products of rule-following without participating in it.
Ask someone to continue the series 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. They write 12. What makes this correct? The obvious answer — the rule add 2 determines it — conceals the puzzle Wittgenstein made central to twentieth-century philosophy. Any finite set of examples is consistent with infinitely many rules. Add 2 could mean add 2 forever, or add 2 up to 1000 then add 4, or any other interpretation matching the examples seen so far. The interpretation does not determine application; something else does. Wittgenstein's answer: rule-following is a practice, grounded in agreement in reactions and in shared forms of life. We agree in continuation because we share a way of living.
In The You On AI Field Guide
The rule-following considerations — developed in Philosophical Investigations §§138–242 and central to Saul Kripke's famous 1982 reading — dissolve the assumption that rules have a content that determines their applications. A rule is not a mental item with an intrinsic correctness-condition.