1 . “Flying insects don’t fly directly to lights from far away because they’re attracted to them, but appear to change course toward a light if they happen to be passing by due to a strange inborn biological response,” writes Samuel Fabian, a bioengineer, in a research paper.
Until now, the leading scientific hypothesis has been that insects use the moon’s light to direct the way at night and mistake artificial lights for the moon. But this idea doesn’t explain why insects that only fly during the day also gather around lights.
To find out what really happens, Samuel’s team track the precise movements of insects in the wild around lights using a high-speed camera. This revealed two notable behaviours. First, when insects fly above lights, they often invert (转向) themselves and try to fly upside down, causing them to fall very fast. Just after insects pass under a light, they start doing a ring road. As their climb angle becomes too steep, they suddenly stop and start to fall. Second, when insects approach a light from the side, they may circle or “orbit” the light.
The videos show that the inversions sometimes result in insects falling on lights. It can appear to the naked eye as though they are flying at the lights. “Instead, insects turn their dorsum toward the light, generating flight perpendicular(垂直) to the source,” the team write. It is common to the two behaviours that the insects are keeping their backs to the light, known as the dorsal light response (DLR). This DLR is a shortcut for insects to work out which way is up and keep their bodies upright, as the moon or sun is usually more or less directly above them, and this direction allows them to maintain proper flight attitude and control. They also find that the insects fly at right angles to a light source, leading to orbiting and unstable flights as the light’s location relative to them changes as they move.
Samuel’s team suggest that a possible outcome of the research could help the construction industry to avoid the types of light that most attract insects.
1. What does the research focus on?| A．Why insects gather around lights. |
| B．Where artificial lights lead insects to. |
| C．What biological response insects are born with. |
| D．How to design environment friendly artificial lights. |
| A．They fly directly to lights. | B．They circle close to lights. |
| C．Their flying speed is steady. | D．Their inversions can be controlled. |
| A．balance their flying | B．keep their route straight |
| C．decide their body positon | D．shorten their flight distance |
2 . We humans are in trouble. We have let loose a new evolutionary process that we don’t understand and can’t control.
The latest leaps forward in artificial intelligence (AI) are rightly causing anxiety. Yet people are responding as though AI is just one more scary new technology, like electricity or cars once were. We invented it, the argument goes, so we should be able to manage it for our own benefit. Not so. I believe that this situation is new and potentially dangerous.
My thinking starts from the premise that all design anywhere in the universe is created by the evolutionary algorithm (算法). This is the process in which some kind of information is copied many times, the copies vary slightly and only some are selected to be copied again. The information is called the replicator (复制者), and our most familiar example is the gene.
But genes aren’t the only replicator, as Richard Dawkins stressed in The Selfish Gene. People copy habits, stories, words, technologies and songs; we change, recombine and pass them on in ever greater variety. This second replicator, evolving much faster than genes ever could, Dawkins called memes (模仿传递行为) — and they are selfish too.
As we face up to the recent explosion in AI, new questions arise. Could a third replicator take advantage of the first two? And what would happen if it did?
For billions of years, all of the Earth’s organisms were gene machines, until, about 2 million years ago, just one species — our ancestors — started imitating sounds, gestures and ways of processing food. They had let loose a second replicator and turned us into meme machines. Following the same principle, could a third replicator appear if some object we made started copying, varying and selecting a new kind of information?
It could, and I believe it has. Our digital technology can copy, store and spread vast amounts of information with near-perfect accuracy. While we had mostly been the ones selecting what to copy and share, that is changing now. Mindless algorithms choose which ads we see and which news stories they “think” we would like. Once a digital replicator takes off, its products will evolve for its own benefit, not ours.
All is not lost, though. We already cope with fast-evolving parasites such as viruses by using our immune systems, machines and vaccines. Now, we need to build our collective mental immunity, our critical thinking and our ability to protect our attention from all that selfish information. Taking lessons from evolution, we can stop imagining we are the controllers of our accidentally dangerous offspring and start learning how to live with them.
1. As for people’s attitude toward AI, the author is ____________.| A．disapproving | B．unconcerned |
| C．sympathetic | D．tolerant |
| A．memes are composed of selfish genes | B．the speed of evolution is underestimated |
| C．replicators vary with human interference | D．memes and genes share a common feature |
| A．Technologies can be double-edged. |
| B．Collective efforts make a better world. |
| C．We should live in harmony with nature. |
| D．Past experience is relevant to future action. |
| A．The pace of technological progress is unstoppable. |
| B．The initiative of algorithm should be strengthened. |
| C．The new evolution can bring about negative effects. |
| D．The artificial intelligence can satisfy our real desires. |
3 . A person could be forgiven for believing 20 years ago that the Internet would soon revolutionise academic publishing, because it became possible for publishers to spread scholarly work at the click of a button — much cheaper than the traditional subscription-based (订阅) model. Recognising the opportunity, many scholars and librarians began to advocate a new, open access model, in which articles are made freely available online to anyone. The result would be a true online public library of science.
However, more than two decades later, the movement has made only slight progress, and the traditional subscription-based model remains entrenched.
Fortunately, things are changing. A big shoe dropped when the University of California (UC) Libraries, one of the biggest library systems, declined to renew its contract with Elsevier, a leading scientific publisher. Elsevier wanted the Libraries to pay two fees: One for its package of licensed journals and the other for the use of Elsevier’s open access model. UC Libraries wanted the licensed journals fee to cover the open access fee; they also wanted open access to all UC researches published in Elsevier journals. When the two sides couldn’t come to terms, the Libraries walked away.
Actually, the open access revolution is more likely to be led by research funding agencies, who can use their purse power to promote open access. A team of funders, Coalition S, insisted that any research they fund should be published in a journal that makes all of its articles freely and immediately available to the public, which is called Plan-S.
Now that some librarians and funders are flexing their muscles, what should academics do? The worst response would be to complain that Plan-S deprives(剥夺) them of academic freedom. Some thoughtful academics might worry that a shift to open access would affect their promotion. After all, subscription journals are more familiar and more prestigious (有威望的) in the current system. However, if enough academics support open access, the system could reach a tipping point beyond which subscriptions no longer signal prestige. Reaching that point would take considerable time and efforts, but it is possible.
When the journal system began in 1665, it was kind of a form of open access. Journals allowed academics to learn openly from one another. It was only in the 1900s that the journal system became thoroughly commoditized(商品化). Now is the time to bring it back to its roots.
1. What does the underlined word probably mean?| A．Uncertain. | B．Rooted. | C．Limited. | D．Popular. |
| A．The duration of the contract. | B．The way of payment. |
| C．The charge for open access model. | D．The choice of licensed journals. |
| A．Academics welcome open access model with full heart. |
| B．Open access model will soon achieve a dominant position. |
| C．Publishers are willing to abandon the subscription model gradually. |
| D．Establishing a true online public library of science requires joint efforts. |
| A．Critical. | B．Supportive. | C．Disapproving. | D．Indifferent. |
4 . The technology for speech-recognition systems has advanced greatly since its appearance in the 1950s. Many voice systems can understand the language when spoken at a normal conversational rate. But even the advanced human-machine interfaces(人机交互) used today are unable to trick the listeners into thinking a computer is a human. Why is this? Simply put, it’s because human beings rely on more than words to convey ideas or interpret messages, such as tones, facial expressions, body movements, and objects in the world around them.
One significant recent achievement in the field of talking computers is virtual personal assistants (VPAs) on mobile phones. If you tell a mobile phone VPA that you want to schedule a lunch with a friend, it can set the appointment in your phone in seconds. The VPA can also hold a basic “conversation” and has earned fame for its elementary sense of humour. Still, the humour is preprogrammed and can be triggered only when human users speak certain key words.
While the potential for “real” communication between a human and a machine may seem exciting, this possibility concerns some people. Some experts worry about people’s attachment to these machines and fear that the art of successful human-to-human conversation will be undeveloped in younger generations. They worry that people won’t be able to display the right emotion or tone in conversations because they haven’t been practising those skills. Others fear that machines will take over functions that were traditionally performed by humans, such as customer service. Another concern often associated with the development of new technology is the invasion of privacy(侵犯隐私)．When people use certain speech-recognition applications, they leave behind an audio track of their speech. When you ask a VPA for directions, your speech is sent and saved to a remote server for processing. This digital trail may lead to data mining, or the collection of large quantities of personal data.
For now, however, the continuing evolution of speech-recognition software is worth expecting. Leading companies in the field hope to make human communication with machines as seamless as possible, just like communicating with another human.
1. According to the passage, what can a VPA do?| A．Entertain users with original jokes. | B．Make people regard it as a human. |
| C．Hold preprogrammed conversations. | D．Display the right tones in conversations. |
| A．One VPA service was priced higher for protecting users’ privacy. |
| B．An airline bore high costs for applying VPAs to its online service. |
| C．An app failed to offer the right direction when given spoken instructions. |
| D．Some teenagers became more socially awkward due to the addiction to VPAs. |
| A．To inform readers of the double-edged quality of a new technology. |
| B．To inspire readers to explore the future of a new technology. |
| C．To promote the application of a new technology. |
| D．To stress the convenience of a new technology. |
| A．The worries over VPAs. | B．Talking to technology. |
| C．The world of technology. | D．Listening to “a real person.” |
5 . Automation (自动化) was a hot topic. Nearly everyone agreed that people would be working less once computers and other kinds of automatic machinery became widespread. For optimists, this was a promise of liberation: At last humanity would be freed from constant toil, and we could all devote our days to more refined pursuits. But others saw a threat: Millions of people would be thrown out of work, and desperate masses would roam the streets. Looking back from 50 years hence, the controversy over automation seems a quaint and curious episode. The dispute was never resolved.
A. J. Hayes, a leader (and no relation to me), wrote in 1964: Automation is not just a new kind of mechanization but a revolutionary force capable of overturning our social order. Whereas mechanization made workers more efficient — and thus more valuable — automation threatens to make them superfluous (过剩的) — and thus without value. The opinions I have cited here represent extreme positions, and there were also many milder views. But I think it’s fair to say that most early students of automation, including both critics and enthusiasts, believed the new technology would lead us into a world where people worked much less.
As for economic consequences, worries about unemployment have certainly not gone away — not with job losses in the current recession approaching 2 million workers in our country alone. But recent job losses are commonly attributed to causes other than automation, such as competition from overseas or a roller-coaster financial system. In any case, the vision of a world where machines do all the work and people stand idly by has simply not come to pass.
The spread of automation outside of the factory has altered its social and economic impact in some curious ways. In many cases, the net effect of automation is not that machines are doing work that people used to do. Instead we’ve dispensed with the people who used to be paid to run the machines, and we’ve learned to run them ourselves. These trends contradict almost all the expectations of early writers on automation, both optimists and pessimists. So far, automation has neither liberated us from the need to work nor deprived (剥夺) us of the opportunity to work. Instead, we’re working more than ever.
What about trades closer to my own vital interests? Will science be automated? Technology already has a central role in many areas of research; for example, genome sequences could not be read by traditional lab-bench methods. Replacing the scientist will presumably be a little harder than replacing the lab technician, but when a machine exhibits enough curiosity and tenacity, I think we’ll just have to welcome it as a companion in zealous research. And if the scientist is elbowed aside by an automaton, then surely the science writer can’t hold out either. I’m ready for my 15-hour workweek.
1. In Paragraph 1, the writer mainly wants to convey that ________.| A．automation results in unemployment |
| B．automation does more harm than good |
| C．the issue of automation was still in discussion |
| D．automation brings in much convenience in life |
| A．automation is more valuable than what we imagine |
| B．automation is a revolutionary force to better development |
| C．the disadvantages of automation far outweigh the advantages |
| D．the new technology would lead people into working much less |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Supportive. | C．Disapproving. | D．Neutral. |
| A．People needn’t work so hard due to automation. |
| B．Traditional labor force will be replaced in the near future. |
| C．Automation should be accepted reasonably in development. |
| D．Automation results in more job losses in the writer’s country. |
6 . It was Saturday. As always, it was a busy one, for “Six days shall you labor and do all your work” was taken seriously back then. Outside, Father and Mr. Patrick next door were busy chopping firewood. Inside their own houses, Mother and Mrs. Patrick were engaged in spring cleaning.
Somehow the boys had slipped away to the back lot with their kites. Now, even at the risk of having Brother caught to beat carpets, they had sent him to the kitchen for more string (线). It seemed there was no limit to the heights to which kites would fly today.
My mother looked at the sitting room, its furniture disordered for a thorough sweeping. Again she cast a look toward the window. “Come on, girls! Let’s take string to the boys and watch them fly the kites a minute.”
On the way we met Mrs. Patric, laughing guiltily as if she were doing something wrong, together with her girls.
There never was such a day for flying kites! We played all our fresh string into the boys’ kites and they went up higher and higher. We could hardly distinguish the orange-colored spots of the kites. Now and then we slowly pulled one kite back, watching it dancing up and down in the wind, and finally bringing it down to earth, just for the joy of sending it up again.
Even our fathers dropped their tools and joined us. Our mothers took their turn, laughing like schoolgirls. I think we were all beside ourselves. Parents forgot their duty and their dignity; children forgot their everyday fights and little jealousies. “Perhaps it’s like this in the kingdom of heaven,” I thought confusedly.
It was growing dark before we all walked sleepily back to the houses. I suppose we had some sort of supper. I suppose there must have been surface tidying-up, for the house on Sunday looked clean and orderly enough. The strange thing was, we didn’t mention that day afterward. I felt a little embarrassed. Surely none of the others had been as excited as I. I locked the memory up in that deepest part of me where we keep “the things that cannot be and yet they are.”
The years went on, then one day I was hurrying about my kitchen in a city apartment, trying to get some work out of the way while my three-year-old insistently cried her desire to “go park, see duck.”
“I can’t go!” I said. “I have this and this to do, and when I’m through I’ll be too tired to walk that far.”
My mother, who was visiting us, looked up from the peas she was shelling. “It’s a wonderful day,” she offered, “really warm, yet there’s a fine breeze. Do you remember that day we flew kites?”
I stopped in my dash between stove and sink. The locked door flew open and with it a rush of memories. “Come on,” I told my little girl. “You’re right, it’s too good a day to miss.”
Another decade passed. We were in the aftermath (余波) of a great war. All evening we had been asking our returned soldier, the youngest Patrick Boy, about his experiences as a prisoner of war. He had talked freely, but now for a long time he had been silent. What was he thinking of — what dark and horrible things?
“Say!” A smile sipped out from his lips. “Do you remember — no, of course you wouldn’t. It probably didn’t make the impression on you as it did on me.”
I hardly dared speak. “Remember what?”
“I used to think of that day a lot in POW camp (战俘营), when things weren’t too good. Do you remember the day we flew the kites?”
1. Mrs. Patrick was laughing guiltily because she thought ________.| A．she was too old to fly kites |
| B．her husband would make fun of her |
| C．she should have been doing her housework then |
| D．her girls weren’t supposed to play the boy’s game |
| A．felt confused | B．went wild with joy |
| C．looked on | D．forgot their fights |
| A．She suddenly remembered her duty as a mother. |
| B．She was reminded of the day they flew kites. |
| C．She had finished her work in the kitchen. |
| D．She thought it was a great day to play outside. |
| A．the writer was not alone in treasuring her fond memories |
| B．his experience in POW camp threw a shadow over his life |
| C．childhood friendship means so much to the writer |
| D．people like him really changed a lot after the war |
7 . People in many countries are longing for the good old days. When asked if life in their country is better or worse today than it was 50 years ago, 31% of Britons, 41% of Americans and 46% of the French say it’s worse.
Psychologists say this kind of nostalgia (怀旧) is natural and sometimes even useful: It helps give us a sense of stability and predictability. But when exactly were the good old days? Podcaster Jason Feifer devoted an episode of his program to this question. The most popular answer seemed to be the 1950s.
In fact, many in the 1950s thought that the good old days were to be found a generation earlier, in the 1920s. But in the 1920s, child psychologist John Watson warned that because of increasing divorce rates, the American family would soon cease to exist. Many people at the time idealized the Victorian era, when families were strong and children respected their elders. People have been longing for the good old days at least since the invention of writing 5,000 years ago. Scientists have discovered tablets (碑) which complain that family life isn’t what it used to be.
Why are human beings always so nostalgic for past eras that seemed difficult and dangerous to those who lived through them? One possibility is that we know we survived past dangers, so they seem smaller now. But we can never be certain we will solve the problems we are facing today. Radio didn’t ruin the younger generation, but maybe the smartphone will.
Another reason is that historical nostalgia is often colored by personal nostalgia. When were the good old days? Was it, by chance, the incredibly short period when you happened to be young? A U.S. poll found that people born in the 1930s and 1940s thought the 1950s was America’s best decade, while those born in the 1960s and 1970s preferred the 1980s.
This kind of nostalgia has neurological roots. Researchers have found that we encode more memories during adolescence and early adulthood than any other period of our lives, and when we think about the past, this is the period we most often return to. Moreover, as we grow more distant from past events, we tend to remember them more positively.
Obviously, some things really were better in the past. But our instinctive nostalgia for the good old days can easily deceive us, with dangerous consequences. Longing for the past and fear of the future inhibit the experiments and innovations that drive progress. As inventor William Petty observed, “When a new invention is first proposed, in the beginning every man objects... not one inventor of a hundred outlives this torture (苦难).”
Petty was right: Vaccination, steam engines, railroads and electricity all met with strong resistance when they were first introduced. The point isn’t to show how silly previous generations were. The same kinds of anxieties have been expressed in our own time about innovations like the internet, video games and stem-cell research.
And not all fears about the future are unfounded. New technologies do result in accidents, they disturb traditional cultures and habits, and they destroy old jobs while creating new ones. But the only way to learn how to make the best use of new technologies and reduce risks is by trial and error. The future won’t be perfect, but neither were the good old days.
1. According to the passage, the good old days ________.| A．were believed to be the 1920s by most Americans |
| B．have been longed for since steam engines were invented |
| C．are usually understood differently by different generations |
| D．were thought to be the Victorian era by people in the 1950s |
| A．The current generation is not as silly as the previous generations. |
| B．It is unwise to be simply opposed to any new inventions and technologies. |
| C．The internet, video games and stem-cell research pose great threats to humanity. |
| D．People are constantly deceived by their instinctive nostalgia for the good old days. |
| A．Approving. | B．Subjective. | C．Cautious. | D．Indifferent. |
| A．What are the good old days? | B．Where does nostalgia come from? |
| C．How does nostalgia influence human beings? | D．Why can’t we stop longing for good old days? |
Compassion involves feeling another person’s pain and wanting to take steps to help relieve their suffering. The word compassion itself derives from Latin and means “to suffer together.” It is related to other emotions such as sympathy and empathy, although the concepts have some key differences. Empathy refers more to the general ability to feel the emotions of others. Compassion, on the other hand, is what happens when those feelings of empathy are accompanied by the desire to help. The difference between sympathy and compassion is that the former responds to suffering with sorrow and concern while the latter responds with warmth and care.
Compassion often comes in one of two forms, which vary depending on where these feelings are directed. Your experience of compassion may be either directed toward other people, or it may be directed inwardly toward yourself. On one hand, compassion is a process of connecting by identifying with another person. When you experience compassion for other people, you feel their pain and want to find a way to relieve their suffering. These feelings motivate you to take action to make the situation better. Self-compassion involves treating yourself with the same kindness that you would show to others. You will treat failures without defensiveness, and no longer beat yourself up you’re your mistakes. You will feel understanding, mindful, and accepting of yourself and your imperfections.
While some people are compassionate by nature, experts also suggest that there are steps you can take to cultivate a greater sense of compassion for both yourself and others.
Bring your attention to the situation. The first component of compassion is to become more aware of what other people are experiencing. Imagine yourself in their shoes. Being able to see things from another person’s perspective can help you gain a sense of compassion for their situation.
Let go of judgment. Focus on accepting people for who they are without criticizing or blaming the victim. Compassionate people tend to accept people as they are and avoid judgement.
Practice mindfulness. Mindfulness is a practice of focusing on the present, becoming more aware of your own thoughts, and observing these thoughts. Research suggests that mindfulness-based interventions can be effective for improving self-compassion.
1. According to the passage, what is the difference between compassion and empathy?2. Generally, how many forms does compassion have and what are they?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
➢ Compassionate people like making judgement of other people, and some of them are compassionate by nature.
4. Do you think the sense of compassion is important in your life? Why or why not?(In about 40 words)
9 . Google placed an engineer on paid leave recently after dismissing his claim that its artificial intelligence is sentient (有感知力的), surfacing yet another debate about the company’s most advanced technology.
Blake Lemoine, a senior software engineer in Google’s Responsible A.I. organization, said in an interview that he was put on leave Monday. The company’s human resources department said he had violated Google’s confidentiality policy. The day before his suspension, Mr. Lemoine said, he handed over documents to a U.S. senator’s office, claiming they provided evidence that Google and its technology engaged in religious discrimination. Google said that its systems imitated conversational exchanges and could riff (即兴重复)on different topics, but did not have consciousness. “Our team—including ethicists and technologists—has reviewed Blake’s concerns per our A.I. Principles and have informed him that the evidence does not support his claims,” Brian Gabriel, a Google spokesman, said in a statement. “Some in the broader A.I. community are considering the long-term possibility of sentient or general A.I., but it doesn’t make sense to do so by anthropomorphizing (人格化)today’s conversational models, which are not sentient.” The Washington Post first reported Mr. Lemoine’s suspension.
For months, Mr. Lemoine had argued with Google managers, executives and human resources over his surprising claim that the company’s Language Model for Dialogue Applications, or LaMDA, had consciousness and a soul. Google says hundreds of its researchers and engineers have conversed with LaMDA, an internal tool, and reached a different conclusion than Mr. Lemoine did. Most A.I. experts believe the industry is a very long way from computing sentience.
Mr. Lemoine, a military veteran who has described himself as a priest, an ex-convict (服刑囚犯) and an A.I. researcher, told Google executives as senior as Kent Walker, the president of global affairs, that he believed LaMDA was a child of 7 or 8 years old. He wanted the company to seek the computer program’s agreement before running experiments on it. His claims were founded on his religious beliefs, which he said the company’s human resources department discriminated against.
“They have repeatedly questioned my sanity (精神健全),” Mr. Lemoine said. “They said, ‘Have you been checked out by a psychiatrist recently?’” In the months before he was placed on administrative leave, the company had suggested he take a mental health leave.
Yann LeCun, the head of A.I. research at Meta and a key figure in the rise of neural networks, said in an interview this week that these types of systems are not powerful enough to attain true intelligence.
1. Why did Google place Blake Lemoine on paid leave?| A．Because he was engaged in religious discrimination. |
| B．Because he claimed artificial intelligence may have consciousness. |
| C．Because he had potential mental issues and refused to accept treatments. |
| D．Because he had leaked materials to government officials without permission. |
| A．Today’s A.I. systems are unlikely to obtain true intelligence. |
| B．LaMDA had consciousness and a soul like an average person. |
| C．Google has discrimination against its employees’ religious belief. |
| D．His claim on A.I.’s intelligence was based on solid scientific study. |
| A．Google decided to dismiss Mr. Lemoine for his being insane. |
| B．Google refused to ask for LaMDA’s permission before experimenting on it. |
| C．Experts in the A.I. community denied the prospect that A.I. could be sentient. |
| D．Google’s president of global affairs suggested Mr. Lemoine take a mental health leave. |
| A．Google’s software engineer claims its A.I. model LaMDA is conscious. |
| B．Google maintains its A.I. cannot own true intelligence despite disagreements. |
| C．Google suspends one of its engineers who claimed its A.I. had consciousness. |
| D．Google’s new initiative arouses the controversy over its advanced technology. |
10 . Famous people often say that the key to becoming both happy and successful is to “do what you love”. But mastering a skill, even one that you deeply love,
The difference may
Csikszentmihalyi suggested that those who most
Fortunately for those of us who aren’t necessarily blessed with an autotelic personality, there is evidence that flow states can be
| A．inquires | B．requires | C．acquires | D．gains |
| A．preventable | B．maintainable | C．sustainable | D．critical |
| A．frustrating | B．encouraging | C．concerning | D．instructing |
| A．move away | B．turn on | C．pick up | D．call for |
| A．concept | B．receipt | C．reception | D．condition |
| A．alternative | B．appropriate | C．approximate | D．sufficient |
| A．fully | B．really | C．readily | D．accidentally |
| A．addiction | B．advance | C．advantage | D．admiration |
| A．forbidden | B．operated | C．fastened | D．facilitated |
| A．temptation | B．charm | C．attractions | D．distractions |
