John Searle came up with that argument to conclude that despite a hypothetical Chinese room being able to have a conversation with someone, it doesn't truly have understanding, so N seems to be at least 1.
To your point though, the more interesting case is people who would disavow the Chinese Room argument, but then end up using reflecting its views while argue against the intelligence of this or that system.
To your point though, the more interesting case is people who would disavow the Chinese Room argument, but then end up using reflecting its views while argue against the intelligence of this or that system.