I keep reading paraphrases of basically that idea in articles and blog posts. Another phrase which means the same thing refers to getting enough data, or declares that data is king. The latter often implies that what's happening is an automation and repackaging of human intelligence.

Saying that the value in the Chinese Room argument is in showing how we have difficulty overcoming our biases is a clever inversion, more a funny debate tactic than serious defense of Searle.

It's not even a funny debate tactic, if no one is actually defending the Chinese Room argument. In other words, there is a value in looking at why people are interested in the argument, despite the fact it fails.

I don't think using brain biology and logic over intuition needs to be defended.

The way that we apply science and logic in the context of our cultural understanding and human biases does need to be examined, however. History shows this quite clearly.

I think it's very telling that instead of engaging in an analysis of the intuitions and biases which apply to human beings thinking about consciousness, you are merely interested in the dead-horse beating exhortation of the supremacy of arguments which have already been won. I think an examination of the above situation has tremendous value for people thinking seriously about AI's implications for future society.

For example, there is a story about Murray Gell-Mann and how he flummoxed his grad students by being just slightly faster at getting to the next idea in conversations. One day, his grad students played a practical joke on him by enumerating all of the implications of a new line of thinking, ahead of time when he wasn't there, memorizing them, then blurting out the next idea when he met with them later. I also had a professor like that. He never thought things I never thought of, but he was always saying them just as I was formulating the idea, but before I could speak it.

I think it's well worth it, to examine exactly what we mean when we think of someone being more or less intelligent. I suspect it will have important implications if and when we do develop a sentient AI.