How does the Chinese room argument challenge the claim that computers understand language?

The Chinese room argument, developed by American philosopher John Searle, challenges the claim that computers understand language by distinguishing between syntax (the formal manipulation of symbols) and semantics (the understanding of meaning).12

Searle’s thought experiment posits a person who knows no Chinese sitting in a room, using a manual to match input Chinese characters with appropriate output responses. While the person can successfully simulate the behavior of a Chinese speaker, they possess no actual understanding of the language.132

Searle argues that computers function similarly: they manipulate symbols based on formal rules without grasping their semantic content. Consequently, he contends that:12

• Simulation is not duplication: Computers may simulate intelligent behavior, but they do not exhibit genuine understanding or thought.13
• Deficiency of Strong AI: The central claim of strong artificial intelligence—that human intelligence is merely the execution of a computer program—is false because it ignores the necessity of semantic properties.12
• Invalidity of the Turing Test: The Turing test is insufficient as a measure of intelligence because it relies solely on behavioral output rather than internal understanding.12