[cauch]

What you are referring to is Searle assertion that "because the Chinese room concept, I conclude that every future human-made systems will be a Chinese room and will never be 'intelligent'".

I think it is an important nuance.

You have to be careful when saying "Searle Chinese room" is dead wrong: the Chinese room concept in itself is useful and not controversial, and it is possible that current LLM are "Chinese rooms", and therefore not 'intelligent'.

[bondarchuk]

We could use the "Chinese room" term to denote a system that superficially mimicks human speech, but breaks down at some point and/or uses different mechanisms such that it doesn't result in consciousness. But I don't think that was the intent of the argument and it's not how the argument is generally understood in the literature, so it would just be confusing IMO.

(And you still seem to be implicitly accepting that the basic argument is valid, which would be wrong.)