题目

The author’s attitude toward Google’s pledges is one of . This year marks exactly two centuries since the publication of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley. Even before the invention of the electric light bulb, the author produced a remarkable work of speculative fiction that would foreshadow many ethical questions to be raised by technologies yet to come. Today the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) raises fundamental questions: “What is intelligence, identity, or consciousness? What makes humans humans?” What is being called artificial general intelligence, machines that would imitate the way humans think, continues to evade scientists. Yet humans remain fascinated by the idea of robots that would look, move, and respond like humans, similar to those recently depicted on popular sci-fi TV series such as “Westworld” and “Humans”. Just how people think is still far too complex to be understood, let alone reproduced, says David Eagleman, a Stanford University neuroscientist. “We are just in a situation where there are no good theories explaining what consciousness actually is and how you could ever build a machine to get there.” But that doesn’t mean crucial ethical issues involving AI aren’t at hand. The coming use of autonomous vehicles, for example, poses thorny ethical questions. Human drivers sometimes must make split-second decisions. Their reactions may be a complex combination of instant reflexes, input from past driving experiences, and what their eyes and ears tell them in that moment. AI “vision” today is not nearly as sophisticated as that of humans. And to anticipate every imaginable driving situation is a difficult programming problem. Whenever decisions are based on masses of data, “you quickly get into a lot of ethical questions,” notes Tan Kiat How, chief executive of a Singapore-based agency that is helping the government develop a voluntary code for the ethical use of AI. Along with Singapore, other governments and mega-corporations are beginning to establish their own guidelines. Britain is setting up a data ethics center. India released its AI ethics strategy this spring. On June 7 Google pledged not to “design or deploy Al” that would cause “overall harm,” or to develop Al-directed weapons or use AI for surveillance that would violate international norms. It also pledged not to deploy AI whose use would violate international laws or human rights. While the statement is vague, it represents one starting point. So does the idea that decisions made by AI systems should be explainable, transparent, and fair. To put it another way: How can we make sure that the thinking of intelligent machines reflects humanity’s highest values? Only then will they be useful servants and not Frankenstein’s out-of-control monster.A、affirmationB、skepticismC、contemptD、respect

The author’s attitude toward Google’s pledges is one of    .

    This year marks exactly two centuries since the publication of Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelley. Even before the invention of the electric light bulb, the author produced a remarkable work of speculative fiction that would foreshadow many ethical questions to be raised by technologies yet to come.

    Today the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) raises fundamental questions: “What is intelligence, identity, or consciousness? What makes humans humans?”

    What is being called artificial general intelligence, machines that would imitate the way humans think, continues to evade scientists. Yet humans remain fascinated by the idea of robots that would look, move, and respond like humans, similar to those recently depicted on popular sci-fi TV series such as “Westworld” and “Humans”.

    Just how people think is still far too complex to be understood, let alone reproduced, says David Eagleman, a Stanford University neuroscientist. “We are just in a situation where there are no good theories explaining what consciousness actually is and how you could ever build a machine to get there.”

    But that doesn’t mean crucial ethical issues involving AI aren’t at hand. The coming use of autonomous vehicles, for example, poses thorny ethical questions. Human drivers sometimes must make split-second decisions. Their reactions may be a complex combination of instant reflexes, input from past driving experiences, and what their eyes and ears tell them in that moment. AI “vision” today is not nearly as sophisticated as that of humans. And to anticipate every imaginable driving situation is a difficult programming problem.

    Whenever decisions are based on masses of data, “you quickly get into a lot of ethical questions,” notes Tan Kiat How, chief executive of a Singapore-based agency that is helping the government develop a voluntary code for the ethical use of AI. Along with Singapore, other governments and mega-corporations are beginning to establish their own guidelines. Britain is setting up a data ethics center. India released its AI ethics strategy this spring.

    On June 7 Google pledged not to “design or deploy Al” that would cause “overall harm,” or to develop Al-directed weapons or use AI for surveillance that would violate international norms. It also pledged not to deploy AI whose use would violate international laws or human rights.

    While the statement is vague, it represents one starting point. So does the idea that decisions made by AI systems should be explainable, transparent, and fair.

    To put it another way: How can we make sure that the thinking of intelligent machines reflects humanity’s highest values? Only then will they be useful servants and not Frankenstein’s out-of-control monster.

  • A、affirmation
  • B、skepticism
  • C、contempt
  • D、respect

题目解答

答案

A

解析

考查要点：本题考查考生对作者态度的判断能力，需要结合文章主旨和关键细节进行推理。

解题核心思路：

  1. 定位关键段落：文章最后两段集中讨论Google的承诺及其意义。
  2. 分析作者用词：注意作者对Google声明的描述（如“one starting point”）和结尾的隐喻（“useful servants” vs. “Frankenstein’s monster”）。
  3. 排除干扰选项：明确作者未直接批评或质疑Google，而是强调其承诺的积极意义。

破题关键点：

  • 隐含评价：作者将Google的承诺与“起点”类比，暗示其为正面进展。
  • 价值导向：结尾强调AI需符合人类价值观，与Google的承诺方向一致，体现支持态度。

关键段落分析

  1. Google的承诺内容：
    文章提到Google承诺不设计有害AI、不开发AI武器、不违反国际规范，并强调遵守国际法和人权。
    关键点：这些承诺体现了对伦理问题的重视。

  2. 作者的评价：

    • “vague”但“one starting point”：作者承认声明不够具体，但肯定其作为初步尝试的价值。
    • 隐喻对比：结尾用“Frankenstein’s monster”警告失控AI，与Google承诺的“有用仆人”形成呼应，暗示支持其方向。

  3. 整体态度：
    作者未直接批评Google，而是通过肯定其承诺的象征意义和潜在价值，表达认可与鼓励。

选项排除

  • B（skepticism）：文中无明显怀疑或质疑语气。
  • C（contempt）：作者未贬低Google的承诺。
  • D（respect）：虽尊重，但“affirmation”更贴合作者的积极态度。