Is Searle's Chinese Room still considered a state-of-the-art philosophical argument? If so, that's very disappointing. It's old! I would have hoped things had m

Is Searle's Chinese Room still considered a state-of-the-art philosophical argument? If so, that's very disappointing. It's old! I would have hoped things had moved on a bit. And more importantly, it's not very productive; it claims to rule out certain hypotheses (very unconvincingly, I'd say) but doesn't give any useful steer on new directions that might be worth pursuing. (Edit to add: I consider this post equivalent to Searle's argument as I don't see any significant new material, except possibly a stated assumption that "consciousness does not require an external observer".)