Researchers have recently argued that the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide new insights into longstanding debates about the role of learning and/or innateness in the development and evolution of human language. Here, we argue on two grounds that LLMs alone tell us very little about human language and cognition in terms of acquisition and evolution. First, any similarities between human language and the output of LLMs are purely functional. Borrowing the "four questions" framework from ethology, we argue that what LLMs do is superficially similar, but how they do it is not. In contrast to the rich multimodal data humans leverage in interactive language learning, LLMs rely on immersive exposure to vastly greater quantities of unimodal text data, with recent multimodal efforts built upon mappings between images and text. Second, turning to functional similarities between human language and LLM output, we show that human linguistic behavior is much broader. LLMs were designed to imitate the very specific behavior of human writing; while they do this impressively, the underlying mechanisms of these models limit their capacities for meaning and naturalistic interaction, and their potential for dealing with the diversity in human language. We conclude by emphasising that LLMs are not theories of language, but tools that may be used to study language, and that can only be effectively applied with specific hypotheses to motivate research.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interests.