> The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese? Searle calls the first position "strong AI" and the latter "weak AI".

> Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either.

The problem with this is that there is no practical difference between a strong and weak AI. Hell, even for humans you could be the only person alive that's not a mindless automaton. There is no way to test for it. And just as well the same way a bunch of transistors don't understand anything a bunch of neurons don't either.

Funniest thing about human inteligence is how it stems from our "good reason generator" that makes up random convincing reasons for doing actions we're already doing, so we could convince others to do what we say. Eventually we deluded ourselves enough to believe that those reasons came before the subconscious actions.

Such a self-deluding system is mostly dead weight for AI, as as long as the system does or outputs what's needed there is no functional difference. Does that make it smart or dumb? Are viruses alive? Arbitrary lines are arbitrary.