To make artificial intelligence that can reason and apply knowledge flexibly, many researchers are focused on fresh ideas from neuroscience (神经科学). Should they be looking to psychology too? Researchers are working to develop new AI systems that can figure out simple abstract relations between objects and the reason behind them as effortlessly as a human brain.
Artificial intelligence has come a long way. In recent years, smart machines inspired by the human brain have shown superhuman abilities in games like chess and Go, proved remarkably expert at imitating some of our language skills. But with various other aspects of what we might reasonably call human intelligence — reasoning, understanding causality (因果关系), applying knowledge flexibly, to name a few — AIs still struggle. They are also inefficient learners, requiring large amounts of data where humans need only a few examples.
Some researchers think all we need to bridge the gap is ever larger AIs, while others want to turn back to nature’s blueprint. One path is to double down on efforts to copy the brain, better replicating (复制) the intricacies of real brain cells and the ways their activity is arranged. But the brain is the most complex object in the known universe and it is far from clear how much of its complexity we need to replicate to reproduce its capabilities.
That’s why some believe more abstract ideas about how intelligence works can provide shortcuts. Their claim is that to really accelerate the progress of AI towards something that we can say thinks like a human, we need to imitate not the brain — but the mind. “In some sense, they’re just different ways of looking at the same thing, but sometimes it’s profitable to do that,” says Gary Marcus at New York University and start-up Robust AI. “You don’t want a replica, what you want is to learn the principles that allow the brain to be as effective as it is.”
1. What do we know about the current AI?| A．They are good at reasoning. | B．They have amazing learning ability. |
| C．They can't understand complex information. | D．They lack some elements of real intelligence. |
| A．People fail to understand the complexity of the brain. |
| B．Scientists need to focus on the structure of the brain. |
| C．The attempt to copy the brain might be unrealistic. |
| D．Scientists are doubtful about the future of AI. |
| A．Make AI more creative. | B．Teach more principles to AI. |
| C．Study how intelligence works. | D．Update their knowledge constantly. |
| A．Are the Smart Machines Intelligent Enough? |
| B．Make Machine Minds That Really Think Like Us |
| C．What to Expect with the Future of AI Technology? |
| D．The Future of AI? Psychology May Provide Fresh Ideas |
相似题推荐
【推荐1】ChatGPT is a new AI system that sounds so human in conversations that it could host its own radio programs. Reading between its instantly generated, perfectly grammatical lines, people see different visions of the future. Without doubt, ChatGPT is impressive.
Some compare the emergence of ChatGPT to the impact of the iPhone, but that doesn’t do it justice. ChatGPT, as well as the generative AI that will follow and outsmart it, is disruptive. And yet, that doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world is upon us. On the contrary, ChatGPT, I would argue, might serve to make us more aware of our irreplaceable human qualities.
Take the creative act, writing in particular, as an example. If you want it to, the AI-powered chatbot (聊天机器人) always produces something because it has the whole world of online data to draw from. But unlike us, it lacks the consciousness. Thinking is hard, critical thinking even harder, and ChatGPT isn’t good at either. It just restates what has already been said; it is one big recycling machine.
There is another obvious limitation of ChatGPT. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt once claimed: the difference between a bullshitter (胡说八道的人) and a liar is that the liar knows what the truth is but decides to take the opposite direction; a bullshitter, however, has no regard for the truth at all. The AI scholar Gary Marus applies this distinction to ChatGPT. He believes that we have reached a critical point where “the price of bullshit reaches zero and people who want to spread misinformation, either politically or just to make a profit, start doing that plentifully”. Unfortunately, ChatGPT will reproduce misinformation from any of its input sources — it is not an intelligent system that tries to balance or weigh different perspectives. In this sense, everything that ChatGPT writes is bullshit.
This is why the so-called AIQ is critical. It is actually an extension and a measurement of our human IQ: our overall knowledge of AI tools, our mastery of clues, and our ethical awareness. ChatGPT is going to change everything — and nothing. Creativity, imagination and ethics — these will all remain unique human range. It is the AI’s very limitations that will make us appreciate our own.
1. What can we learn about ChatGPT from the passage?| A．It generates immediate language responses. |
| B．It provides instructions on writing skills. |
| C．It helps generate an artificial voice. |
| D．It offers a service for language learning. |
| A．Evil. | B．Revolutionary. | C．Profitable. | D．Reliable. |
| A．It makes up lies constantly. |
| B．It always takes a neutral standpoint. |
| C．It often makes unfair judgement. |
| D．It can’t tell right from wrong. |
| A．ChatGPT should be treated like a toy, not a tool. |
| B．ChatGPT is causing panic now. |
| C．ChatGPT makes us realize the unique human features. |
| D．ChatGPT is bound to generate bullshit. |
【推荐2】Can you imagine printing food? Some scientists are trying to revolutionize the dining experience by doing this. They hope that having a 3D printer in the kitchen will become as commonplace as the microwave. Scientists say that they are easy to use: you simply have to select a recipe and put the raw food "inks" into the printer. You can also change the instructions to make the food exactly how you want it. This means that it would be very quick and easy to create tasty and nutritious meals.
They say that if people used 3D printers to create meals there would be less need for traditional growing, transporting and packaging processes as food production would be a lot easier. For example, alternative ingredients (原料) such as proteins from insects could be changed into tasty products. And as is known, those traditional activities are not beneficial to our surroundings.
This technology could also help people who suffer from dysphagia (a swallowing disorder). The patients could program the printer and softer versions would be made so that they would not have trouble swallowing them.
However, some people think that using 3D-printed foods would be a disaster. It could take away many jobs, including those for growing, transporting and packaging food. Imagine a world where there was no need for farming or growing crops and the same tastes could be printed from a raw "food ink". Likewise, traditional cafes and restaurants might lose business. Also, there are concerns about the nutritional value of printed food: is it really possible to get the nutrients we need from food-based inks?
What's more, cooking and eating together with family and friends has long been a traditional and enjoyable activity. It is hard to imagine a world where the pastime of cooking is dead and meals can be created at the touch of a button.
1. What do scientists think of 3D food printing?| A．It is cheap to use it. | B．It is environment-friendly. |
| C．It is advancing quickly. | D．It needs improving. |
| A．The printed foods. | B．Their favorite foods. |
| C．The more nutritious foods. | D．The more tasty foods. |
| A．Their raw "food inks" are more nutritional. |
| B．People would get more jobs produced by them. |
| C．People need more evidence about their nutrition. |
| D．They would be bought in traditional restaurants. |
| A．The growth of 3D food printing |
| B．The future of 3D food printing |
| C．The 3D food printing business |
| D．The two sides of 3D food printing |
【推荐3】Farming is moving indoors, where the sun never shines, where rainfall is irrelevant（不相干的）and where the climate is always right. The perfect crop field could be inside a windowless building with controlled light, temperature, wetness, air quality and nutrition. It could be a high-rise building in New York or a sprawling complex（综合楼） in the Saudi desert. It may be an answer to the world’s food problems.
The world is already having trouble feeding itself. Half of the people on earth live in cities, and nearly half of those—about 3 billion—are hungry or ill-fed. Food prices, currently increasing, are buffeted by dryness, floods and the cost of energy required to plant, harvest and transport it. And prices will only get more unstable. Climate change makes long-term crop planning uncertain. Farmers in many parts of the world are already using water available to the last drop. And the world is getting more crowded: by mid-century, the global hungry population will grow to 9 billion.
To feed so many people may need to expand farmland at the expense of forests and wilderness, or finding ways to completely increase crop output.
Gertjan Meeuws has taken the concept of greenhouse—growing vegetables and house plants in enclosed（封闭的）and controlled environments. In their research station, water flows into the pans when needed, and temperature is kept constant. Lights go on and off, creating similar day and night according to the rhythm of the plants.
A building of 100 square meters and 14 layers（层）of plants could provide a daily diet of 200 kilograms of fresh fruit and vegetables for the entire population of Den Bosch, about 140,000 people. Their idea is not to grow foods that require much space, like corn or potatoes.
Here sunlight is not only unnecessary but can be harmful. Plants need only specific wavelengths of light to grow. Their growth rate is three times faster than those under greenhouse conditions. They use about 90 percent less water than outdoor agriculture. And city farming means producing food near consumers, so there’s no need to transport it long distances.
1. What does Paragraph 2 mainly tell us？| A．The climate is worse and worse. | B．The city people live a hard life. |
| C．The world has difficulty feeding its people. | D．The world’s population is increasing fast. |
| A．badly affected | B．prevented | C．demanded | D．well achieved |
| A．helps save sea water a lot |
| B．suits different conditions |
| C．is completely different from greenhouse agriculture |
| D．suits the production of corn |
| A．The development of indoor farming. | B．A great revolution in farming. |
| C．Advantages of indoor farming. | D．Sunless and rainless indoor farming. |
【推荐1】It is a general belief among academics that the humanities are in crisis. According to Harvard historian James Hankins, part of the problem is the dominance of “critical” reading over “primary” reading. Primary reading takes a text at face value and simply tries to understand what the author intended to say. Critical reading assumes an author’s statements can never be taken at face value. Instead, they must be “seen through” to expose the text’s real meaning, which is determined in accord with this or that fashionable theory.
Mr. Hankins says primary reading “must be recovered” for higher education in the humanities to be effective. I would go further. Primary reading isn’t important only for the humanities, or even for education more generally. The restoration of primary reading could be a crucial weapon in fighting the “idle talk” that troubles American society.
Idle talk was philosopher Martin Heidegger’s term for inauthentic discourse(不可信的言辞). It involves adopting and circulating others’ opinions about something without ever personally engaging that thing for yourself. People engaged in idle talk speak in accord with expectations for their particular identity or role. They hold and express the opinions a person in their role is expected to hold.
Idle talk can be harmless. Each year my mother forms strong opinions about which films should win Academy Awards without seeing any of them, after reading articles by critics she favors. But idle talk can also be dangerous. Consider journalism. The norm nowadays is for one reporter to break a story, followed by dozens or hundreds of journalists recycling that content. They may add a little spin of their own but rarely look into the issue for themselves—even when this would require but a few clicks and a couple of minutes to read a legislative(法律的) text. Some journalists even just search social media for the story of the day and rewrite it in their own words.
The Covid pandemic highlighted the problem, from exclusion of those daring to discuss the tradeoffs of lockdowns to the promotion of masks as a political identity marker completely disconnected from medical or scientific justification. Not to mention the misleading statement that arose over “the science” and the social trend to “follow” it.
Social media has contributed to the spread of idle talk. Authentic discourse requires time, effort and good-faith engagement, but social media tends to encourage the opposite. As journalists comment on every topic, however small or traditionally unnewsworthy, the all-knowing chorus of global gossip becomes a roaring crowd. Social media raises this voice, pushing it into user feeds 24/7. We hear about everything, and we can’t hear about anything without also being told what opinion we should have about it. Opinions before facts; know what to think about something before actually looking into it for yourself. And really, why even bother with that?
Primary reading isn’t only something the humanities need. Our entire culture needs its value to be recognized and restored.
1. What do we know from the first two paragraphs?| A．Primary reading focuses on the deep meaning. |
| B．Critical reading leads to the crisis in humanities. |
| C．Critical reading is generally preferred nowadays. |
| D．Primary reading once dominated higher education. |
| A．Practice. | B．Priority. | C．Investigation. | D．Interpretation. |
| A．It broadens people’s understanding. |
| B．It affects independent thinking ability. |
| C．It shakes people’s trust in news report. |
| D．It promotes the advance of social media. |
| A．Readers should stay away from idle talk. |
| B．Readers should read original texts carefully. |
| C．Readers should limit the impact of social media. |
| D．Readers should take a balanced view on reading. |
【推荐2】LIANG TAO.sold 80 pink Givenchy bags in 12 minutes.Becky Fang sold 100 Mini Cooper cars in just five.Both are wanghong,literally"red-hot on the web".Every day millions of Chinese search social media for wanghong posts or tune in to live-streams for wanghong's opinions on everything.The fans are helping this new Chinese Internet star to make money out of their popularity and to shake up the country's e-commerce industry in the process.
A few of wanghong have been hired by luxury brands.Jaeger-LeCoultre, a Swiss watchmaker,hired Papi Jiang for a video ad targeting young urbanites(都市人），including her 27m fans on Sina Weibo,a Twitter-like microblog. Zhang Yi of iiMedia Research,a consulting firm,estimates that up to 15%of sales on shopping sites like Taobao or social-media apps such as WeChat are influenced by wanghong's public support.The length of a dress might be decided by a survey of a wanghong's fans;its launch date might be based on the number of hits,shares or comments it collects,some of which can cause last-minute design changes.
This poses a new challenge for retailers(零售商），whose supply chains must respond even more quickly to wanghong's opinions.Whereas previously a company would look for a celebrity to match its image,wanghong and their admirers are shaping goods.
Another challenge comes directly from wanghong themselves.They increasingly make money not merely from online support or advice but by launching their own e-commerce stores.Sales of goods accounted for just under half of wanghong earnings of 53bn yuan($8bn)in 2016,estimates Analysis,a Chinese market-research firm(the rest came mostly from live-show tips and adverts).
Some wanghong are going a step further.In November Becky Fang launched her own clothing line.Part of her motivation,she says,was that the brands she supported did not always match the trends she was sharing with her followers.By creating her own brand,Becky's Fantasy,she has full control of the quality.She also gains a new income. For the time being only 3-5%of wanghong follow Becky Fang's example,iiMedia Research estimates.But it expects the model to become an industry in its own right, including entertainment and e-commerce,and driven by online data..
1. Why can wanghong use their popularity to make money?| A．Because they are Internet stars. |
| B．Because they use social media. |
| C．Because their opinions influence fans.. |
| D．Because they can shake the e-commerce industry. |
| A．They are fans-based. |
| B．They are social-media-based. |
| C． They are design-shared. |
| D． They are youth-targeted. |
| A．Online support and advice. |
| B．Increasing sales of goods online. |
| C．Quick responses to the.market changes. |
| D．Wanghong's opinions and e-commerce stores. |
| A．Because they want.to attract more fans. |
| B．Because they want to share with their followers. |
| C．Because they want to set up a new industry model. |
| D．Because the brands they speak for can't satisfy their fans. |
| A．supportive | B．objective |
| C．indifferent | D．worried |
【推荐3】Americans wear black for mourning. Chinese wear white. Westerners think of dragons as monsters. Chinese honor them as symbols of God. Chinese civilization has often shown such polarities (极性) with the West，as though each stands at extreme ends of a global string. Now in the University of California，Berkeley，a psychologist has discovered deeper polarities between Chinese and American cultures—polarities that go to the heart of how we reason and discover truth.
His findings go far toward explaining why American cultures seem so contentious and Chinese cultures so passive，when compared to each other. More importantly，the research opens the way for the peoples of the East and the West to learn from each other in fundamental ways. The Chinese could learn much from Western methods for determining scientific truth，said Kaiping Peng，a former Beijing scholar，who is now a UC Berkeley assistant professor of psychology. And Americans could profit enormously from the Chinese tolerance for accepting contradictions (矛盾) in social and personal life，he said.
“Americans have a terrible need to find out who is right in an argument，” said Peng. “The problem is that at the interpersonal level，you really don’t need to find the truth，or maybe there isn’t any. ”Chinese people，said Peng，are far more content to think that both sides have flaws (缺陷) and virtues，because they have a holistic awareness that life is full of contradictions. They do far less blaming of the individual than do Americans，he added.
In studies of interpersonal argument，for example，when subjects were asked to deal with contradictory information stemming from conflict between a mother and a daughter or a student and a school，Peng found that Americans were “noncompromising，blaming one side—usually the mother—for the causes of the problems，demanding changes from one side to attain a solution and offering no compromise”in dealing with the conflict. Compared to this angry，blaming American stance，the Chinese were paragons (模范) of compromise，finding fault on both sides and looking for solutions that moved both sides to the middle.
1. In Paragraph 1，the author sets examples in order to ________.| A．expose the contradiction between Chinese and Americans |
| B．show the differences between Chinese culture and American culture |
| C．find the reason for the differences |
| D．generalize the main idea of the passage |
| A．conservative | B．aggressive |
| C．objective | D．optimistic |
| A．likely to find the truth in life |
| B．reluctant to admit their failure |
| C．reluctant to have a general idea of things |
| D．likely to know advantages and disadvantages of things |
| A．an American treats his or her mother badly |
| B．different ideas of treating the aged |
| C．different personalities of Chinese and Americans |
| D．different conflicts of Americans and Chinese |
【推荐1】Given how valuable intelligence and automation (自动化) are, we will continue to improve our technology if we are at all able to. At a certain point, we will build machines that are smarter than we are. Once we have machines that are smarter than we are, they will begin to improve themselves. And then we risk what the mathematician IJ Good called an ‘‘intelligence explosion”. The process could get out of control.
The concern is really that we will build machines that are much more competent than we are. And the slightest divergence (分歧) between their goals and our own could destroy us.
Just think about how we relate to ants. We don’t hate them. We don’t go out of our way to harm them. In fact, sometimes we take pains not to harm them. We step over them on the sidewalk. But whenever their presence seriously conflicts with one of our goals, we will kill them without hesitation. The concern is that we will one day build machines that, whether they’re conscious or not, could treat us with similar disregard.
The bare fact is that we will continue to improve our intelligent machines. We have problems that we desperately need to solve. So we will do this, if we can. The train is already out of the station, and there’s no brake to pull. If we build machines that are more intelligent than we are, they will very likely develop in ways that we can’t imagine, and exceed us in ways that we can’t imagine.
So imagine we hit upon a design of super intelligent AI that has no safety concerns. This machine would be the perfect labor-saving device. It can design the machine that can build the machine which can do any physical work, powered by sunlight, more or less for the cost of raw materials. So we’re talking about the end of human labour. We’re also talking about the end of most intellectual work. So what would apes like ourselves do in this circumstance?
What would some nations do if they heard that some company in Silicon Valley was about to deploy a super intelligent AI? This machine would be capable of starting war, whether terrestrial or cyber, with unbelievable power.
Given that the companies and governments building super intelligent AI are likely to perceive themselves as being in a race against all others, and that to win this race is to win the world, it seems likely that whatever is easier to do will get done first unless it is destroyed in the next moment.
But the moment we admit that information processing is the source of intelligence, we have to admit that we are in the process of building some son of god. Now would be a good time to make sure it’s a god we can live with.
1. What message does Paragraph 3 convey?| A．Intelligence and automation are very valuable. |
| B．The improved machines will get away from us. |
| C．The presence of machines does conflict with our goals. |
| D．Future intelligent machines could treat us without mercy. |
| A．Time and tide wait for no man. |
| B．Rome wasn’t built in a day. |
| C．Tomorrow is another day. |
| D．Shot arrows will not come back. |
| A．By making comparisons. |
| B．By giving assumptions. |
| C．By showing valid evidence. |
| D．By analyzing statistics. |
| A．Human beings will no doubt be destroyed by AI in the future. |
| B．Super intelligent AI will put an end to human labour eventually. |
| C．We should keep the development of AI within humans’ control. |
| D．Human beings should stop the development of super intelligent AI. |
【推荐2】The artificial-intelligence chatbot ChatGPT has shaken educators since its November release. New York City public schools have banned it from their networks and school devices. There is, perhaps surprisingly, one subject area that doesn’t seem threatened, It turns out ChatGPT is quite bad at maths.
“I’m not hearing maths instructors express concern about ChatGPT,” said Paul von Hippel, a professor at the University of Texas who studies data science and statistics. “I’m not sure it’s useful for maths at all, which feels strange because maths was the first-use case for the artificial-intelligence devices.”
ChatGPT’s struggle with maths is inherent in this type of AI, known as a large language model. It scans a large amount of text from across the web and develops a model that might be extremely effective for writing grammatically correct responses to essay requirement, but not for solving a maths problem.
In an email, I asked Debarghya Das, a search-engine engineer, why ChatGPT gets some simple questions right but others completely wrong. “Maybe the right analogy (类比) is if you ask a room of people, who have no idea what maths is but have read many hieroglyphics (象形文字), ‘What comes after 2+2,’ they might say, ‘Usually, we see a 4,’ That’s what ChatGPT is doing.” But, he adds, “Maths isn’t just a series of hieroglyphics. It’s the process of calculating.”
It isn’t great for pretending you know it through a maths class because you only recognize the mistakes if you know the maths. Another reason that maths instructors are less anxious about this innovation is that they have been here before. The field was upended for the first time decades ago with the general availability of computers and calculators.
“Maths has had the biggest revolution based on machinery of any mainstream subject,” said Conrad Wolfram, the strategic director of Wolfram Research. “In the real world, since computers came along, have maths, science and engineering gotten conceptually simpler? No, completely the opposite. We’re asking harder and harder questions, going up a level.”
Eventually, AI will probably get to the point where its maths answers are not only confident but correct. A pure large language model might not be up for the job, but the technology will improve. In general, however, AI, like computers, will likely ultimately be most useful for those who already know a field well. They know the questions to ask, how to identify the shortcomings and what to do with the answer. A tool, in other words, is for those who know the most maths, not the least.
1. What does the underlined word “inherent” in Paragraph 3 most probably mean?| A．Stable. | B．Practical. | C．Limited. | D．Natural. |
| A．Calculating requires some knowledge of hieroglyphics. |
| B．ChatGPT is good at solving mathematical questions by analogy. |
| C．Reading hieroglyphics prevents ChatGPT solving maths questions. |
| D．ChatGPT’s response is based on language models instead of calculations. |
| A．ChatGPT is useful to identify maths mistakes. |
| B．Technical revolution made maths easier to understand. |
| C．New technology will end up pushing the boundaries of maths. |
| D．ChatGPT has been banned from networks and school devices. |
| A．It will play the largest role for professionals in a field. |
| B．It will become confident to solve all the maths problems. |
| C．It will turn the maths field over again just like computers. |
| D．It will take the jobs from humans as the technology improves. |
【推荐3】Artificial intelligence (AI) technology may soon be a useful tool for doctors. For example, it may help them better understand and treat diseases like breast cancer (乳腺癌) in ways that were not possible.
Rishi Rawat teaches AI at a University in Los Angeles. He is part of a team of scientists who are researching how AI and machine learning can more easily recognize cancerous growths in the breast. He says, “You put information about cancer cells (细胞) into a computer and it will learn the cancerous growth patterns. The pattern recognition is very important to making decisions.”
At present, researchers have to take a thin piece of tissue (组织), put it on a small piece of glass and add color to better see the cell-growth patterns. That process could take days or even longer. Scientists say artificial intelligence can do it better than just count cells. Through machine learning, it can quickly recognize patterns, or structures, and learn how the cells are organized.
The hope is that machines will soon be able to make a quick recognition of cancerous cell-growth patterns that is free of human mistakes. Rawat adds that the process could be done “for almost no cost for the patients”. But having a large amount of information about cells is important for a machine to effectively do its job. Once the cancerous growth pattern is recognized, doctors still have to treat the patient. The form of treatment depends on the kind of cancer.
David Agus is another researcher of the team. He believes, “Computers will help doctors make better decisions and look for those patterns that the human brain can't recognize by itself. But they will not treat patients.”
1. What’s the advantage of AI technology?| A．It treats breast cancer all by itself. |
| B．It provides free cancer treatment for the patients. |
| C．It recognizes the cancerous growth patterns faster. |
| D．It helps doctors make fewer mistakes in cancer treatment. |
| A．The process of treating cancers. | B．The process of adding color to cells. |
| C．The process of taking a piece of tissue. | D．The process of recognizing the cell-growth. |
| A．AI will not replace doctors. | B．AI will develop fast in the future. |
| C．AI can be useless in treating cancers. | D．AI can provide the doctors with treatments. |
| A．AI technology has a long way to go. | B．AI Makes Better Doctors. |
| C．Future Cancer Treatments will be successful. | D．AI Helps Pattern Recognition. |
