[AndrewOMartin]

Searle's Chinese Room Argument was specifically aimed at people claiming an algorithm could understand something because of its behaviour.

It applies to Deep Learning as much as it does Schank and Ableson's script understanding system.

[inventtheday]

The Chinese Room Argument is deeply flawed because it assumes that language translation in humans is a conscious phenomenon. In fact, if you're proficient in a foreign language, you can relate to the fact that for the most part translation happens in the black box of the subconscious mind. The words "bubble out" naturally. The black box of the subconscious mind is no different than the black box of the Chinese room. "Understanding" in the traditional sense is absent from both processes.

[nightski]

If a human can translate perfectly without understanding the conversation, then that to me implies that the mind itself gives no innate intelligence similar to the computer. It must be taught the meaning of things, exactly as a computer would need to be. I'm just not following his logic, it feels like a straw man. Of course the computer doesn't understand the meaning of the symbols it is translating, because it was never given data to teach it that (similar to a human in the scenario).