| engineerklub | Дата: Вторник, 20.08.2024, 19:10 | Сообщение # 1 |
 Генералиссимус
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 28578
Статус: Offline
| Английский язык (часть 3). Вариант общий
Тип работы: Работа Контрольная
Форматы файлов: Microsoft Word
Сдано в учебном заведении: ДО СИБГУТИ
Описание:
I. Переведите следующие предложения, обращая внимание на условные предложения.
1. If I were you, I wouldn’t drive in the snow.
2. We would have changed our plans if we had heard the weather forecast.
3. Sandra will join us later unless she has a lot of work to do.
4. They would have helped us move house if we had asked them.
5. Unless you are busy, we’ll talk now.
6. Emma would have sent a card if she had remembered it was their anniversary.
7. If you had saved some money, you would have been able to go on holiday last year.
8. When water boils, it produces steam.
9. Unless you leave now, you’ll be late for the lecture.
10. If she hadn’t missed the bus, she would be here now.
11. If you were more sensible, you wouldn’t have spoken to your boss like that.
12. If she got back late last night, she won’t come to work today.
II. Переведите следующие предложения, обращая внимание на выразительные конструкции.
1. It was Alexander Graham Bell who invented the telephone.
2. It was Margaret Thatcher who became the first female Prime Minister of Britain.
3. He did know about the new plan of the experiment.
4. It was a student of SibSUTIS who won the competition abroad.
5. She does translate original English texts perfectly.
6. Here comes the governor of our region.
7. Let me invite all my groupmates to the concert.
8. It was Novosibirsk Opera and Ballet Theatre that won “The Golden Mask” Prize at the Theatre Festival in Moscow.
9. Never before have I seen such an exotic animal.
10. Were I you, I wouldn’t trust her.
11. Not only did they make a donation but they also promised to build a shelter for the homeless.
12. Only after she started working was she able to save some money.
СКАЧАТЬ
|
| |
| |
| engineerklub | Дата: Вторник, 20.08.2024, 19:10 | Сообщение # 2 |
|
Генералиссимус
Группа: Администраторы
Сообщений: 28578
Статус: Offline
| Тип работы: Работа Экзаменационная
Форматы файлов: Microsoft Word
Сдано в учебном заведении: ДО СИБГУТИ
Описание:
Let’s Shape AI Before AI Shapes Us
It’s time for a global conversation
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS LIKE A BEAUTIFUL suitor who repeatedly brings his admirer to the edge of consummation only to vanish, dashing hopes and leaving an unrequited lover to wonder what might have been.
Once again, big shots are hearing the siren song of AI and warn of hazards ahead. Visionary entrepreneur Elon Musk thinks that AI could be more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Physicist Stephen Hawking warns that AI “could spell the end of the human race.” Even Bill Gates, who usually obsesses on such prosaic tasks as eliminating malaria, advises careful management of digital forms of “super intelligence.” Will today’s outsized fears of AI become fodder for tomorrow’s computer comedy?
Past AI scares now seem silly in hindsight. In the 1950s, building on excitement over the advent of digital computers, scientists foresaw machines that would instantly translate Russian to English. Rather than 5 years, machine translation took more than 50. “Expert systems” similarly have experienced a long gestation, and even now these programs, built around knowledge gained to human experts, deliver little. Meanwhile, HAL, the Terminator, Ava, and other computer-generated rivals remain the stuff of Hollywood.
In recent years, some claims for AI seem to have been realized. Computers now can literally pick faces out of a crowd and unerringly provide customer service over the phone by simulating a real conversation. Driverless cars and package-delivering drones promise to revolutionize the movement of things and people. Bombs that select their own targets and robots that kill are within reach. Daily life already seems impossible without digital devices that record, alert, and advise their owners on actions and plans.
The beautiful suitor is back, more fetching than ever. Now the human embrace of robots is closer, and probably inevitable.
Because betrayal is central to romance, humans, jealous of AI, worry about the loss of their own supremacy in the world. Digital minds may emulate, then resent, and finally attack humans.
From this dark space, thoughts arise of existential doom. An evil genius might conquer the world with a malevolent AI army. Software agents could knock out the essential systems to which a stricken society could not recover. To Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot Uprising, humans need not wait for the first AI catastrophe in order to install a “steel-reinforced panic room” to which they can escape to disobedient digital servants.
Dark fantasies, however, distract attention to more urgent questions. How will AI affect employment, especially higherpaying work? When will robot writers and artists alter the way humans consume creative content? Who will be held accountable for accidents when humans are no longer in the decision or action loop?
Instead of “wolf” criers of the Musk sort, humans need a serious discussion about new norms and practices that will shape and govern AI. Here are a few suggestions on how to direct the global conversation in ways fruitful rather than fearful: š
Embrace the precautionary principle: Bans rarely work; careful testing and technical revisions do. Civil society needs safe spaces to conduct experiments with synthetic intelligences. Governments should encourage controlled tests by private actors on the condition that data and analyses be widely shared.
Engineer in equity and diversity: The disturbing truth is that the digital frontier is dominated by men living in North America, Europe, Japan, and China. Adventures in AI ought to reflect the aspirations of women as much as men and also reflect culture and values to the global South.
Help the losers: The spread of AI will hurt some, mostly by reducing the demand for human labor. Responses should include helping people to use their time in useful and appealing ways. Governments might also consider giving every human, as a legal right, dominion over a set number of robots. Such policies would at least create a measure of equity, because surely wealthy folks will invest in assembling their own armies of bots. —G. PASCAL ZACHARY
G. Pascal Zachary is a professor of practice at Arizona State University and author of Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century (MIT Press, 1999).
СКАЧАТЬ
|
| |
| |
