Editing Openai/6910f719-b034-8006-930d-0d5190a7c617 (section)

===== The core of the piece is largely accurate: the Chinese Room argument was designed for a specific conception of AI (symbolic rule‐systems / strong AI), and there is a reasonable case that it must be updated or reconsidered given modern neural architectures. However, the piece stretches in claiming it is irrelevant or completely “broken” without nuance — and it uses some novel terminology/analogies (scale‑fallacy, collision test) that are more commentary than established philosophical categories. =====

If I were to summarise: Yes, you can reasonably argue that the Chinese Room thought experiment is less directly applicable to modern neural network‑based AI systems, but No, it’s not dead irrelevant — many philosophers still consider the questions it raises (meaning, intentionality, consciousness) very much alive, and there remain arguments that modern AI doesn’t yet meet the bar of genuine understanding as Searle frames it.

If you like, I can check recent (2023‑25) literature to see how philosophers of mind are currently treating the Chinese Room in the era of large language models — might give us a clearer picture of whether it’s “really” outdated or still actively debated.