I don't think I understand what the author is getting at here. If behaviour is replaced by something accurately intelligible, especially when the purpose of that behaviour was otherwise not obvious, how is that not a translator of sorts ? In particular :
If a whale could speak English, it would not say things like ‘take this camera away from me’. To do so, it would need (among other things) the concepts of a camera and of taking something away.
I think it's pretty obvious that animals have such concepts, not sure what the point of confusion is here
I should probably read some Wittgenstein.
https://iai.tv/articles/wittgenstein-and-why-ai-cannot-talk-to-animals-auid-2730
