[KingMob]

True, but simpler in scope. Searle's Chinese Room is paradoxical because it involves trying to combine mechanical processes (of rote symbol-copying) with supposedly higher-order thinking (speech/understanding).

But the "decision-making" here is dubious. If Searle had written an "Iron Bar Gambling Room" argument, I bet most people would have rejected the notion that the room was "deciding" anything. This is little different from light-sensitive cells in primitive eyespots accumulating energy from photons to "decide" the direction of the sun.

In short, this paper is what happens when people chase the Minimum Publishable Unit for their career.