Traditionally, meaning was closely connected with intentions: it was what one meant, or intended, by an utterance. And what was meant was taken to be objects or facts in the outside world, or private experiences accessible to the cogito. But de SaussureDe Saussure, Ferdinand introduced an alternative view, according to which language operates by the differences it sets among its various elements; “in language there are only differences.” Formalists like HilbertHilbert, David go in the same direction when they propose that the basic (primitive) terms of a theory cannot be defined (as they were in Euclid’sEuclid geometry), not explicitly at least: their meaning is, rather, implicitly determined by the relations the theory’s axioms establish among them. This view too can be generalized to all use of language: whether spoken or written, someone’s idiolect acquires meaning, and can be understood, only by inquiring into how the speaking or writing of it establishes relations among its elements. Viewing language differentially makes one appreciate the similarity between its use by humans and by AI. For the latter works by absorbing huge amounts of text and uncovering relations within them. It is literally true for it, as DerridaDerrida, Jacques would say, that there is no outside to the text; but then the same is true for humans as well, if by “text” we understand not just something written but the whole context of one’s behavior. As far as meaning goes, our approach is the same whether we deal with machines or with humans.