Question

    Computer scientists have hoped to give robots technical skills to help them recognize, process and react to humor. But these attempts have mostly failed. AI (人工智能) experts say that in many cases, attempts to make robots understand humor end up producing funny results, but not in the way they were supposed to.

Tristan Miller studied more than 10,000 puns (双关语) in one research project. The pun is a kind of joke that uses a word with two meanings. For example, you could say, “Balloons do not like pop music.” The word “pop” can be a way of saying popular music; or can mean the sound a balloon makes when it explodes. But a robot might not get the joke. Tristan Miller says that is because humor is a kind of creative language that is extremely difficult for computer intelligence to understand.

Allison Bishop is a computer scientist and she also performs stand-up comedy. She explained that machines are trained to look for patterns. Comedy, on the other hand, relies on things that stay dose to a pattern, kit not completely within it. To be funny, humor should also not be predictable, Bishop said. This sets a great obstacle for a machine to recognize and understand what is funny.

Bishop says since robots have great difficulty understanding humor, she feels like it gives her better job security as a comedy performer. It even made her parents happy when her brother decided to become a full-time comedy writer because it meant he wouldn’t be replaced by a machine, she added.

Despite the difficulties, Darmstadt University’s Miller says there are good reasons to keep trying to teach humor to robots. It could make machines more relatable, especially if they can learn to understand sarcasm (讽刺), he noted. Humans use sarcasm to say one thing but mean another. But Kiki Hempelmann thinks differently. “Teaching AI systems humor may make them find it where it isn’t, and they may use it where it’s inappropriate,” he said. “Maybe bad AI will start killing people because it thinks something is funny,” he added.

1.What does the author most probably want to show in Paragraph 1?

A.Robots’ influence on the scientific development.

B.Robots’ challenges of making sense of humor.

C.Computer scientists’ devotion to technical skills.

D.Computer scientists’ concern about AI’s development.

2.Examples mentioned in Paragraphs 2 and 3 are intended to ___________-.

A.prove robots do poorly in funny work

B.explain robots aren’t as intelligent as humans

C.describe language is complex and changeable

D.show language can’t be taught in a set pattern

3.What does the underlined word “obstacle” in Paragraph 3 mean?

A.Barrier. B.Record.

C.Message. D.Possibility.

4.What can we infer about teaching AI system humor from the last paragraph?

A.It will end up in vain.

B.It may be a double-edged sword.

C.It may help improve humans’ humor.

D.It will attract more computer scientists.

Answer

1.B

2.D

3.A

4.B

【解析】

本文是一篇说明文，介绍了教机器人理解幽默存在的挑战以及科学家们对教智能机器人理解幽默的不同观点。

1.推理判断题。根据第一段内容，特别是根据“Computer scientists have hoped to give robots technical skills to help them recognize, process and react to humor. But these attempts have mostly failed.”可知，计算机科学家希望赋予机器人技术技能来帮助他们识别、处理幽默，并且能够对幽默做出反应，但这些尝试大多都失败了，由此可知，在本段作者主要是想说明机器人在理解幽默方面存在不小的挑战，故B项正确。

2.推理判断题。根据第二段的“humor is a kind of creative language that is extremely difficult for computer intelligence to understand”可知，幽默是一种创造性的语言，计算机很难理解，再根据第三段中的“She explained that machines are trained to look for patterns.”可知，她解释说机器是经过训练来寻找模式的，由此可知，这两段的例子是想表明语言不能以模式化的方式习得，故D项正确。

3.词义猜测题。根据画线词前的“To be funny, humor should also not be predictable, Bishop said.”可知，毕肖普说，有趣的是，幽默也不应该是可预测的，因此此处是说这给机器识别和理解有趣的东西设置了很大的障碍，由此可知画线词词义为“障碍”，故A项正确。

4.推理判断题。根据最后一段中的“Darmstadt University’s Miller says there are good reasons to keep trying to teach humor to robots. It could make machines more relatable, especially if they can learn to understand sarcasm (讽刺), he noted.”可知，达姆施塔特大学的米勒说，有很好的理由继续尝试教机器人幽默，他指出，这可能会使机器更具亲和力，特别是如果它们能够学会理解讽刺的话，再根据“But Kiki Hempelmann thinks differently. “Teaching AI systems humor may make them find it where it isn’t, and they may use it where it’s inappropriate,” he said. “Maybe bad AI will start killing people because it thinks something is funny,” he added.”可知，但是Kiki Hempelmann的想法不同，他说：“教授人工智能系统幽默可能会让它们在不合适的地方找到幽默，在不合适的地方使用幽默”，他补充说：“也许坏的人工智能会开始杀人，因为它认为有些事情很有趣”，根据这两位科学家的观点可知，教智能机器人幽默有利有弊，因而是一把双刃剑，故B项正确。