A ATIVIDADE DE RECUPERAÇÃO

Instituto Federal do Paraná – Campus Palmas

Sistema de Informação

Inglês Instrumental

Prof. Me. Gabriel Both Borella

ATIVIDADE DE RECUPERAÇÃO

Atividade 1

Leia os dois textos abaixo para responder as questões:

Texto I

[pic 1]

Texto II

AI ethicist Kate Darling: ‘Robots can be our partners’ – Zoë Corbyn

The MIT researcher says that for humans to flourish we must move beyond thinking of robots as potential future competitors

Dr Kate Darling is a research specialist in human-robot interaction, robot ethics and intellectual property theory and policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab. In her new book, The New Breed, she argues that we would be better prepared for the future if we started thinking about robots and artificial intelligence (AI) like animals.

What is wrong with the way we think about robots?

So often we subconsciously compare robots to humans and AI to human intelligence. The comparison limits our imagination. Focused on trying to recreate ourselves, we’re not thinking creatively about how to use robots to help humans flourish.

Why is an animal analogy better?

We have domesticated animals because they are useful to us – oxen to plough our fields, pigeon delivery systems. Animals and robots aren’t the same, but the analogy moves us away from the persistent robot-human one. It opens our mind to other possibilities – that robots can be our partners – and lets us see some of the choices we have in shaping how we use the technology.

But companies are trying to develop robots to take humans out of the equation – driverless robot cars, package delivery by drone. Doesn’t an animal analogy conceal what, in fact, is a significant threat?

There is a threat to people’s jobs. But that threat is not the robots - it is company decisions that are driven by a broader economic and political system of corporate capitalism. The animal analogy helps illustrate that we have some options. The different ways that we’ve harnessed animals’ skills in the past shows we could choose to design and use this technology as a supplement to human labour, instead of just trying to automate people away.

Who should be responsible when a robot causes harm? In the middle ages, animals were put on trial and punished…

We did it for hundreds of years of western history: pigs, horses, dogs and plagues of locusts – and rats too. And bizarrely the trials followed the same rules as human trials. It seems so strange today because we don’t hold animals morally accountable for their actions. But my worry when it comes to robots is, because of the robot-human comparison, we’re going to fall into this same type of middle ages animal trial fallacy, where we try to hold them accountable to human standards. And we are starting to see glimmers of that, where companies and governments say: “Oh, it wasn’t our fault, it was this algorithm.” .

Em relação aos dois textos, retire todos os grupos nominais de acordo com o seguinte modelo:

TEXTO I

DETERMINANTE	MODIFICADOR(ES)	NÚCLEO
	strong	team
is	currently	working
the	worst affected	regions
	work	schemes
	clean	water
	emergency	feeding
for	malnourished	children
	veterinary	drugs
	animal	feed

TEXTO II

DETERMINANTE	MODIFICADOR(ES)	NÚCLEO
The	MIT	researcher
a	research	specialist
in	human-robot	interaction
to	human	intelligence
an	animal	analogy
have	domesticated	animals
an	animal	analogy
a	significant	threat
to	people’s	jobs
is	company	decisions
a	broader	economic
of	corporate	capitalism
The	animal	analogy
to	human	labour
of	western	history
as	human	trials
the	robot-human	comparison
to	human	standards
	AI ethicist	Kate Darling
	intellectual property	theory
	robot	ethics
	pigeon delivery	systems
	driverless robot	cars
	package	delivery
	animal trial	fallacy