No settled answer

The Chinese Room has no generally accepted resolution.

Some people accept Searle's conclusion that following a program is not enough for understanding. Others think the systems reply identifies his mistake: he looks for understanding in the operator instead of the complete system.

Neither position can be settled by looking at the room's output alone. The same behavior can support different interpretations of what is happening inside.

You do not need to choose a side before continuing.

Carry one question forward: where should we look for understanding, in a part, in the complete system, or in the way that system connects to a world?