The argument that he doesn't understand Chinese is like arguing that the hardware itself isn't an AI.
No it isn't it is the software that is the AI.
It is the set of instructions that he is following that understands Chinese.
The argument that the creator of the experiment used against this was that if you removed the pen and paper and had the man do it all in his head, then the man still doesn't understand, but he completely missed the point. In that case it just changes from the pen and paper + man that is the hardware to purely the man.
The Chinese room argument against AI falls down when you remember that the man is only the hardware. He may be essential to the running of the software, but he is just as much the mind of the Chinese translator as my processor is the maths running through it.
The argument that he doesn't understand Chinese is like arguing that the hardware itself isn't an AI. No it isn't it is the software that is the AI. It is the set of instructions that he is following that understands Chinese. The argument that the creator of the experiment used against this was that if you removed the pen and paper and had the man do it all in his head, then the man still doesn't understand, but he completely missed the point. In that case it just changes from the pen and paper + man that is the hardware to purely the man.
The Chinese room argument against AI falls down when you remember that the man is only the hardware. He may be essential to the running of the software, but he is just as much the mind of the Chinese translator as my processor is the maths running through it.