For those who don't know, here is a description of the Chinese Room Argument.
The argument is essentially that even if an AI may give the impression of being intelligent because they answer questions correctly they could still just be a better dictionary that maps inputs to outputs without understanding why the inputs and outputs are connected. Like if you'd trap a monolingual non-Chinese speaker in a room, give him instruction in Chinese and a rule book that connects input shapes to output shapes. So despite the system of the "Chinese Speaking Room" giving correct answers to the Chinese questions, thereby convincing Chinese speaking bystanders that it has understood the people inputting questions, the person inside still has no clue and no way to figure out what any of the symbols, both the input and the output, actually mean. And therefore no clue what it is doing. Like it could be translating poetry or hate speech and it wouldn't know the difference.
But what it misses is that the person inside the box is still a human/strong AI, it's just artificially limited by the input/output system. It can only follow the rules and be perceived as working or break the rules and be perceived as defunct. So it's less of an argument against the existence of a strong AI and more of our inability to realize it when we see it.
I am well aware that the person inside the room is just a human/strong AI to make the point that "even if we gave that thing all that we could think of having it would still not be able to learn Chinese like that". But nonetheless it is a strong AI. So technically we could still argue that we could build a smart AI trapped in a dumb job, that to bystanders happens to look smart.
And this actually creates a problem for the replies to that argument. Like for example the "Robot Reply". That asks: "What if the room isn't a black box but a robot that can see and move". Then from making a move and viewing the result the robot or rather the person inside the robot would be able to gain awareness of their movement and from that maybe spacial awareness and even "self-awareness" aso. And that is not a novel experiment, we regularly do that in computer games.
Like you could switch the perspective and argue that the computer game is the real world and that we are the simulation and by press a button and seeing the result of that on the screen we are able to gain awareness of "ourselves" in this world. Or for those less inclined to video games, maybe technical jargon. It's a different language there are surprisingly many people who have no idea what the terms actually mean because they often happen to be in a different language but by being aware how they are used they develop a practical understanding of the terms that is often indistinguishable from actual "knowledge" of the language.
So in reality we still don't know Chinese (how the actual movements of "our body" work), but we know how to cause them and how the environment reacts to it and that is already what we call "understanding" isn't it? Or what is the difference of knowing the meaning of a word and knowing it's effect?
So again to stress that point, I know that I'm being a little facetious about this thought experiment and that this wasn't really what it tried to prove, nonetheless am I missing something? Or isn't it just artificially incapacitating the AI in order to prove it's not smart?