2. 职称英语
  3. In the early days of artificial intelligence research, it was commonplace fo

In the early days of artificial intelligence research, it was commonplace fo

游客2024-09-23  44
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 straggle 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. [br] Which of the following statements about "unskilled" jobs is NOT true?
选项 A、The "unskilled" jobs are usually carried out by the working-class.
B、The educated elites usually show contempt for the "unskilled" jobs.
C、The educated elites perform badly in doing these "unskilled" jobs.
D、Robots can outperform humans when doing these "unskilled" jobs.
答案 D
解析 细节题。由题干中的unskilled定位至第三段。由该段最后两句可知，人类与人工智能做这些“非技术性”的工作之间的差异巨大，要远胜于人与人之间的差异，从这个意义上说，“非技术性的工人”已经不再存在了。由此可以推断，机器人在做这些工作时远不如人类，[D]表述与此相反，故为错误表述，应选[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3770755.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)