2. 外语
  3. In the early days of artificial intelligence research, it was commonplace for the well-educated academics in the field to(mistak

In the early days of artificial intelligence research, it was commonplace for the well-educated academics in the field to(mistak

admin2016-03-10  53
问题     In the early days of artificial intelligence research, it was commonplace for the well-educated academics in the field to(mistakenly)think that being "intelligent" meant being good at things that other well-educated academic researchers struggled at, like playing chess. We now know, however, that it’s far harder to get robots to do things that come naturally to us(like identify objects and pick them up)than it is to get them to prove logical theorems(定理)or find patterns in huge volumes of data—things we humans struggle at. This and other counter-intuitive trends in AI and research on the nature of human intelligence have discouraged researchers from trying to predict which jobs will be automated, but a provocative new study by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne at Oxford University tries to do just that, and their findings are alarming.
    In "The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?", Frey and Osborne estimate that 47 percent of U. S. jobs are at risk of being automated in the next 20 years. This does not mean that they necessarily will be automated(despite the way the study has been portrayed in some media outlets)—rather, the authors argue, it is plausible over the next two decades that existing and foreseeable AI technologies could be used to cost-effectively automate those jobs out of existence. Machines may not(and probably won’t)do the jobs the same way as people, however—just remember the last time you used an automated check-out system at a grocery store. There’s a difference between machines doing something cheaply and doing it well. Frey and Osborne took into account the possibility of such "task simplification" in their analysis.
    Which jobs are most at risk? According to "The Jetsons", we should expect robots to clean our houses and do other working-class occupations that educated elites have historically looked down upon as "unskilled". But anyone who has done such a job, or has watched an episode of "Undercover Boss" and seen highly-paid CEOs fumble while trying to carry out the demanding minimum wage jobs usually performed by their underlings(下属), knows that there is no such thing as unskilled labor anymore(if there ever was), especially if you are comparing humans and machines in the same breath. The gap between humans and current AI is vastly greater than the differences between humans.
    Frey and Osborne focus on "engineering bottlenecks" in AI and robotics, and compare these stumbling points with the requirements of jobs in order to determine which are most and least likely to be vulnerable to automation. The biggest bottlenecks are perception and manipulation, creative intelligence, and social intelligence, all of which computers struggle mightily at(but Rosie the Robot excelled at, by the way). While the trend in recent decades has been towards a hollowing out of "middle-skill" jobs and an increase in low-paying service sector jobs and high-paying, highly educated jobs, Frey and Osborne expect that automation in the future will mainly substitute for "low-skill and low-wage" jobs.
According to the research of the artificial intelligence(AI), which of the following statements is true?
选项 A、It is much easier to get robots to do complex things such as playing chess.
B、It is much easier to get robots to identify objects and pick them up.
C、It is much more difficult to get robots to find patterns in huge volumes of data.
D、It is much more difficult for humans to prove logical theorems.
答案D
解析 细节题。第一段第二句为比较级结构，比较的对象分别是让机器人做一些我们信手拈来的事情(如识别与拾捡物体等)与让机器人做逻辑运演、在大量数据里面建构模型的工作。相比较而言，前者要远难于后者，而后者对人类来说，是需要煞费苦心的。由此看来，人类在进行逻辑运演方面要远比机器人费力，故[D]符合文意。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/6hPK777K
0

专业英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)