Rethinking Evaluation for Principled Generalization Using a Kripkean Challenge to Meaning as Use

Large language models operationalize an intuitive, view of meaning as use. We argue that it faces a rule-following challenge. Using Kripke's interpretation of Wittgenstein, we argue that finite histories of use do not determine a unique rule for future extension. This reframes the debate about OOD generalization but also about NLP evaluation; benchmarks that measure performance on fixed use cases or local robustness, we argue, do not by themselves establish semantic competence. To evaluate whether models preserve rules and concepts under principled domain extension, we propose to evaluate two capacities, central to this ability: abstraction and recursion; and we offer an experimental paradigm for testing both.