2. 考研
  3. Earlier this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock wouldn’t tick any closer to midnight,

Earlier this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock wouldn’t tick any closer to midnight,

admin2017-02-28  9
问题     Earlier this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the Doomsday Clock wouldn’t tick any closer to midnight, but that it wouldn’t tick any further away, either. The clock will remain at "three minutes to midnight," where the Bulletin set it last year after growing concerned about nuclear modernization programs and climate change.
    As I wrote in the tech section today, the Clock provides a rare opportunity to talk about "existential risk" :those threats so vast that they could endanger all of humanity. Existential risk is undergoing a bit of a renaissance right now: Nick Bostrom, the Cambridge philosopher whocoined the term, is the subject of skeptical magazine profiles; and millions of tech-made dollars have gone into funding " good A. I." research. In fact, there’ s a sort of debate right now among Silicon Valley technologists: Does climate change or artificial intelligence pose a greater existential risk to humanity?
    To more climate-attuned forecasters, this can seem a little silly. " Worrying about sentient A.I. as the ice caps melt is like standing on the tracks as the train rushes in, worrying about being hit by lightning," once tweeted Bret Victor, a former designer at Apple. Some of the computing industry’s figureheads—among them Peter Thiel and Elon Musk—disagree, or, at least, find A.I. sufficiently worrisome to invest their wealth in stopping it.
    What always strikes me about this is that both sides can imagine their own form of historical irony. Imagine two throwaway lines in a circa-2100 historical review: "Yet even as the planet’s atmosphere reached the point of no return, some of America’s keenest technical minds poured millions into preventing sentient artificial intelligence, a technological feat now believed to be centuries away." Or ...
    "Despite urgent warnings from some of the most talented engineers on the planet about what was to come, the United States government stayed focused on the danger of climate change."
For me, it demonstrates the limits of conspicuously meta-historical thinking. History is easy to predict in retrospect; to actually live through it is to see thousands of terrifying possibilities that never come to pass. I think vastly more wealth should go to stopping climate change than evil A.I.—but maybe wealth should also go toward handling global pandemics, or reducing extreme poverty, or funding America’s sclerotic democratic institutions.
    For me, the thought that that history might one day judge our own era is a happy one. But that’s because, if history is still getting written in 2100, it means there will be people to write it.
What is the subject of this passage?
选项 A、The Trouble with Writing the Future History.
B、A Retrospect into a Glorious Human History.
C、The Ever-bright Prospects of Mankind.
D、Science, Technology and Humanity.
答案A
解析 (1)第1段以世界末日时钟作为引子，引入了人类“生存危机”的话题(第2段)。(2)那么什么才是真正的“生存危机”?第3段介绍了两种观点。(3)文章继而进行了讨论，认为从未来历史发展角度看，无论是气候变化说或是人工智能说都有局限性(第4、第5段)。作者在第6段中认为气候变化风险更为紧迫。(4)最后，第7段的结论便是：如何写作历史，关键是未来还有人来写作。纵观全文，选项[A]正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/9zbZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)