Except in this case it’s more clear the person does understand how to get the outcome. Just follow the instructions, thus the system of them plus the instructions understands how to build a desk.
Sure, computer hardware just like human DNA for example does not understand English. But, that says nothing about systems created by human DNA or computer hardware.
So if I follow a React.js tutorial and get to a working Todo App example, that means me + tutorial page "understands" React.js? What am I missing?
Basically, cookbooks allow people to create food that they don’t know how or create without the cookbook. But, that only applies to what’s actually listed in the cook book. For a tutorial to allow somone to ‘know’ react it would need to encompass all edge cases etc.
Given all nessisary tools and resources like reference materials somone might be able to create arbitrary React.js pages which is closer to what your example. The remaining difference is time to completion and quality of output. But, if the tools allow somone to get the same quality of output in the same fine frame as somone that knows React.js then the system effectively knows React.js.
Consider, somone knows ASM but not machine code. Given the right tooling that coverts back and forth 1:1 to machine code it’s functionally identical to somone knowing machine code. Which is why nobody learns machine code over ASM as there is no benifit to learning machine code.
The argument is non-speaker+room doesn't write Chinese but lungs+rest-of-person does speak Chinese.
The Chinese room is intended to be decomposition that shows something different than decomposing a person.