I don't think it is described as non-sentient in the book, but only as lacking consciousness.
Consciousness not being required for sentience is one of the two major themes of the book (the other being that consciousness is an evolutionary dead end).
Still your example is very relevant. I very much believe that ChatGPT, for example, is not conscious. The question is if it has some amount of sentience.
Sentience without consciousness is just cartesian dualism again: society without people; forests without trees; etc.
Sentience is a power of consciousness which is a power of the body which is a power of the cells of the body.
There is no dualism other than in the imagination: one could imagine some fuzzy distant "forest" without thereby imagining trees -- so much for the imagination.
I think sapience would be a better word than sentience. But with regards to the process talking to the crew I think the book explicitly said that it didn't have any sort of comprehension of what it was saying. I belive the Chinese room was an attack from rorschach similar to the perceived attack from humanity. basically it wanted to waste their time and energy on something pointless.
I just finished reading this book after someone in Hacker News plugged the book last week. I agree with your assessment. The book explores different types of intelligence.
Similar to the book Solaris (there is a new English translation, and I recommend both the US and Russian movies).
I don't think it is described as non-sentient in the book, but only as lacking consciousness.
Consciousness not being required for sentience is one of the two major themes of the book (the other being that consciousness is an evolutionary dead end).
Still your example is very relevant. I very much believe that ChatGPT, for example, is not conscious. The question is if it has some amount of sentience.