Questões de Inglês

Chaos fills battlefields and disaster zones. Artificial intelligence may be better than the natural sort at coping with it

 

  ARMIES have always been divided into officers and grunts. The officers give the orders. The grunts carry them out. But what if the grunts took over and tried to decide among themselves

on the best course of action? The limits of human psychology, battlefield communications and (cynics might suggest) the brainpower of the average grunt mean this probably would not work in an army of people. It might, though, work in an army of robots.

  Handing battlefield decisions to the collective intelligence of robot soldiers sounds risky, but it is the essence of a research project called ALADDIN. Autonomous Learning Agents for Decentralised Data and Information Networks, to give its full name, is a five-year-old collaboration between BAE Systems, a British defence contractor, the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Southampton, and Imperial College, London. In it, the grunts act as agents, collecting and exchanging information. They then bargain with each other over the best course of action, make a decision and carry it out.

  So far, ALADDIN's researchers have limited themselves to tests that simulate disasters such as earthquakes rather than warfare; saving life, then, rather than taking it. That may make the technology seem less sinister. But disasters are similar to battlefields in their degree of confusion and complexity, and in the consequent unreliability and incompleteness of the information available. What works for disaster relief should therefore also work for conflict. BAE Systems has said that it plans to use some of the results from ALADDIN to improve military logistics, communications and combat-management systems.

  ALADDIN's agents ─ which might include fire alarms in burning buildings, devices carried by emergency services and drones flying over enemy territory ─ collect and process data using a range of algorithms that form the core of the project.

In the case of an earthquake, for instance, the agents bid among themselves to allocate ambulances. This may seem callous, but the bids are based on data about how ill the casualties are at different places. In essence, what is going on is a sophisticated form of triage designed to make best use of the ambulances available. No human egos get in the way. Instead, the groups operating the ambulances loan them to each other on the basis of the bids. The result does seem to be a better allocation of resources than people would make by themselves. In simulations run without the auction, some of the ambulances were left standing idle.

  All of which is very life-affirming when ambulances are being sent to help earthquake victims. The real prize, though, is processing battlefield information. Some 7,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, from small hand-launched devices to big robotic aircraft fitted with laser-guided bombs, are now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their combined video output this year will be so great that it would take one person four decades to watch it.

  Data are also streaming in from other sources: remote sensors operating as fixed sentries, sensors on ground vehicles and sensors on the equipment that soldiers carry around with them (some have cameras on their helmets). On top of this is all the information from radars, satellites, radios and the monitoring of communications. The result, as an American general has put it, is that the armed forces could soon be ―swimming in sensors and drowning in data‖.

  ALADDIN, and systems like it, should help them keep afloat by automating some of the data analysis and the management of robots. Among BAE Systems' plans, for example, is the co-operative control of drones, which would allow a pilot in a jet to fly with a squadron of the robot aircraft on surveillance or combat missions.

  And for those worried about machines taking over, more research will be carried out into what Dr Jennings calls flexible autonomy. This involves limiting the agents' new-found freedom by handing some decisions back to people. In a military setting this could mean passing pictures recognized as a convoy of moving vehicles to a person for confirmation before, say, calling down an airstrike.

  Whether that is a good idea is at least open to question. Given the propensity for human error in such circumstances, mechanized grunts might make such calls better than flesh-and-blood officers. The day of the people's — or, rather, the robots '— army, then, may soon be at hand.

Disponível em: <www.economist.com>.

 

Based on the text, ALLADIN
I.processes data using especial algorithms.
II.is being developed by the arm industry.
III.has been tested in the war with Iran.
IV.is very efficient in chaotic contexts.
V.will produce fully autonomous machines 

Chaos fills battlefields and disaster zones. Artificial intelligence may be better than the natural sort at coping with it

 

  ARMIES have always been divided into officers and grunts. The officers give the orders. The grunts carry them out. But what if the grunts took over and tried to decide among themselves

on the best course of action? The limits of human psychology, battlefield communications and (cynics might suggest) the brainpower of the average grunt mean this probably would not work in an army of people. It might, though, work in an army of robots.

  Handing battlefield decisions to the collective intelligence of robot soldiers sounds risky, but it is the essence of a research project called ALADDIN. Autonomous Learning Agents for Decentralised Data and Information Networks, to give its full name, is a five-year-old collaboration between BAE Systems, a British defence contractor, the universities of Bristol, Oxford and Southampton, and Imperial College, London. In it, the grunts act as agents, collecting and exchanging information. They then bargain with each other over the best course of action, make a decision and carry it out.

  So far, ALADDIN's researchers have limited themselves to tests that simulate disasters such as earthquakes rather than warfare; saving life, then, rather than taking it. That may make the technology seem less sinister. But disasters are similar to battlefields in their degree of confusion and complexity, and in the consequent unreliability and incompleteness of the information available. What works for disaster relief should therefore also work for conflict. BAE Systems has said that it plans to use some of the results from ALADDIN to improve military logistics, communications and combat-management systems.

  ALADDIN's agents ─ which might include fire alarms in burning buildings, devices carried by emergency services and drones flying over enemy territory ─ collect and process data using a range of algorithms that form the core of the project.

In the case of an earthquake, for instance, the agents bid among themselves to allocate ambulances. This may seem callous, but the bids are based on data about how ill the casualties are at different places. In essence, what is going on is a sophisticated form of triage designed to make best use of the ambulances available. No human egos get in the way. Instead, the groups operating the ambulances loan them to each other on the basis of the bids. The result does seem to be a better allocation of resources than people would make by themselves. In simulations run without the auction, some of the ambulances were left standing idle.

  All of which is very life-affirming when ambulances are being sent to help earthquake victims. The real prize, though, is processing battlefield information. Some 7,000 unmanned aerial vehicles, from small hand-launched devices to big robotic aircraft fitted with laser-guided bombs, are now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their combined video output this year will be so great that it would take one person four decades to watch it.

  Data are also streaming in from other sources: remote sensors operating as fixed sentries, sensors on ground vehicles and sensors on the equipment that soldiers carry around with them (some have cameras on their helmets). On top of this is all the information from radars, satellites, radios and the monitoring of communications. The result, as an American general has put it, is that the armed forces could soon be ―swimming in sensors and drowning in data‖.

  ALADDIN, and systems like it, should help them keep afloat by automating some of the data analysis and the management of robots. Among BAE Systems' plans, for example, is the co-operative control of drones, which would allow a pilot in a jet to fly with a squadron of the robot aircraft on surveillance or combat missions.

  And for those worried about machines taking over, more research will be carried out into what Dr Jennings calls flexible autonomy. This involves limiting the agents' new-found freedom by handing some decisions back to people. In a military setting this could mean passing pictures recognized as a convoy of moving vehicles to a person for confirmation before, say, calling down an airstrike.

  Whether that is a good idea is at least open to question. Given the propensity for human error in such circumstances, mechanized grunts might make such calls better than flesh-and-blood officers. The day of the people's — or, rather, the robots '— army, then, may soon be at hand.

Disponível em: <www.economist.com>.

 

According to the text, artificial intelligence is

According to the studies conducted by McKinsey,

I. governments should make teaching a high-status profession.
II. educational systems need money and standardized reforms.
III. priority should be given to reading, mathematics and science.
IV. school systems should hire the best teachers available.

 

TEXT 1

It is not money nor uninformed reform that makes schools better

 

EDUCATION is the handmaiden of economic growth: teach future workers well, it is argued, and they will go on to invigorate the economy. No surprise then that the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, goes to great lengths to discover how the school systems in its member countries are doing. Education ministers are already anxiously awaiting the next issue of its PISA study, which is due to be published on December 7th. As happens every three years, this will detail and rank the reading, mathematics and science skills of 15-year-olds in each country.

  But even more important than ranking school systems is knowing how to make them better. That is the aim of another new study, to be released on November 29th by McKinsey. The consultancy selected school systems where it has seen standards rise and identified what they had in common. Countries can make rapid progress, it argues, if they do the right thing—and at the right time.

  For starters, McKinsey says, throwing money at education does not seem to do much good, at least in those countries that already send all their young people to school (see chart). America, for example, increased its spending on schools by 21% between 2000 and 2007, while Britain pumped in 37% more funds. Yet in this period, according to PISA, standards in both countries slipped.

  Many school systems that were not showered with extra funds did much better. Schools in the state of Saxony, in Germany, in Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Poland have all raised their games. Even poor countries such as Chile and Ghana have made progress.

  What separates the big spenders from the improvers, McKinsey found, is the awareness that different types of school system respond to radically different types of reform. In countries where schools mainly seek to teach pupils to read, write and grasp some basic maths, centralization seems to work. All teachers should be directed to teach the same lessons from the same textbooks.

  Countries where schools have already attained a higher standard should become pickier in choosing teachers. Another study by McKinsey in 2007 concluded that making teaching a high-status profession was what boosted standards. For instance, schools could recruit teachers from among the best university graduates, an idea that was part of a series of measures published in England on November 24th.

  At the very top of the global educational league table — where only a handful of countries or systems within them manage to attain really high standards — decentralization is the name of the game. The authorities hand control over to teachers, most of whom are highly educated and motivated, so they can learn from each other and follow the best practices. When it comes to getting the very best grades, it seems that teacher still knows best.

Disponível em: <www.economist.com>.

 

Assinale a alternativa que contém somente afirmativas corretas.

According to the text, it is possible to infer that OECD

I. is an organization which congregates countries.
II. spends a lot of money on educational reforms.
III. is concerned about education in their member states.
IV. is historically interested in following PISA studies.
V. proposes a unified solution to educational problems.
VI. plans to publish a PISA study next December 7th.

 

TEXT 1

It is not money nor uninformed reform that makes schools better

 

EDUCATION is the handmaiden of economic growth: teach future workers well, it is argued, and they will go on to invigorate the economy. No surprise then that the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, goes to great lengths to discover how the school systems in its member countries are doing. Education ministers are already anxiously awaiting the next issue of its PISA study, which is due to be published on December 7th. As happens every three years, this will detail and rank the reading, mathematics and science skills of 15-year-olds in each country.

  But even more important than ranking school systems is knowing how to make them better. That is the aim of another new study, to be released on November 29th by McKinsey. The consultancy selected school systems where it has seen standards rise and identified what they had in common. Countries can make rapid progress, it argues, if they do the right thing—and at the right time.

  For starters, McKinsey says, throwing money at education does not seem to do much good, at least in those countries that already send all their young people to school (see chart). America, for example, increased its spending on schools by 21% between 2000 and 2007, while Britain pumped in 37% more funds. Yet in this period, according to PISA, standards in both countries slipped.

  Many school systems that were not showered with extra funds did much better. Schools in the state of Saxony, in Germany, in Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Poland have all raised their games. Even poor countries such as Chile and Ghana have made progress.

  What separates the big spenders from the improvers, McKinsey found, is the awareness that different types of school system respond to radically different types of reform. In countries where schools mainly seek to teach pupils to read, write and grasp some basic maths, centralization seems to work. All teachers should be directed to teach the same lessons from the same textbooks.

  Countries where schools have already attained a higher standard should become pickier in choosing teachers. Another study by McKinsey in 2007 concluded that making teaching a high-status profession was what boosted standards. For instance, schools could recruit teachers from among the best university graduates, an idea that was part of a series of measures published in England on November 24th.

  At the very top of the global educational league table — where only a handful of countries or systems within them manage to attain really high standards — decentralization is the name of the game. The authorities hand control over to teachers, most of whom are highly educated and motivated, so they can learn from each other and follow the best practices. When it comes to getting the very best grades, it seems that teacher still knows best.

Disponível em: <www.economist.com>.

 

Assinale a alternativa que contém somente afirmativas corretas.

TEXT 1

It is not money nor uninformed reform that makes schools better

 EDUCATION is the handmaiden of economic growth: teach future workers well, it is argued, and they will go on to invigorate the economy. No surprise then that the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, goes to great lengths to discover how the school systems in its member countries are doing. Education ministers are already anxiously awaiting the next issue of its PISA study, which is due to be published on December 7th. As happens every three years, this will detail and rank the reading, mathematics and science skills of 15-year-olds in each country.

  But even more important than ranking school systems is knowing how to make them better. That is the aim of another new study, to be released on November 29th by McKinsey. The consultancy selected school systems where it has seen standards rise and identified what they had in common. Countries can make rapid progress, it argues, if they do the right thing—and at the right time.

  For starters, McKinsey says, throwing money at education does not seem to do much good, at least in those countries that already send all their young people to school (see chart). America, for example, increased its spending on schools by 21% between 2000 and 2007, while Britain pumped in 37% more funds. Yet in this period, according to PISA, standards in both countries slipped.

  Many school systems that were not showered with extra funds did much better. Schools in the state of Saxony, in Germany, in Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Poland have all raised their games. Even poor countries such as Chile and Ghana have made progress.

  What separates the big spenders from the improvers, McKinsey found, is the awareness that different types of school system respond to radically different types of reform. In countries where schools mainly seek to teach pupils to read, write and grasp some basic maths, centralization seems to work. All teachers should be directed to teach the same lessons from the same textbooks.

  Countries where schools have already attained a higher standard should become pickier in choosing teachers. Another study by McKinsey in 2007 concluded that making teaching a high-status profession was what boosted standards. For instance, schools could recruit teachers from among the best university graduates, an idea that was part of a series of measures published in England on November 24th.

  At the very top of the global educational league table — where only a handful of countries or systems within them manage to attain really high standards — decentralization is the name of the game. The authorities hand control over to teachers, most of whom are highly educated and motivated, so they can learn from each other and follow the best practices. When it comes to getting the very best grades, it seems that teacher still knows best.

Disponível em: .

 

Based on the text, ―centralization‖ should be used as a strategy in educational systems when

America, for example, increased its spending on schools by 21% between 2000 and 2007, while Britain pumped in 37% more funds. Yet in this period, according to PISA, standards in both countries slipped […].

 

TEXT 1

It is not money nor uninformed reform that makes schools better

 

 EDUCATION is the handmaiden of economic growth: teach future workers well, it is argued, and they will go on to invigorate the economy. No surprise then that the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, goes to great lengths to discover how the school systems in its member countries are doing. Education ministers are already anxiously awaiting the next issue of its PISA study, which is due to be published on December 7th. As happens every three years, this will detail and rank the reading, mathematics and science skills of 15-year-olds in each country.

  But even more important than ranking school systems is knowing how to make them better. That is the aim of another new study, to be released on November 29th by McKinsey. The consultancy selected school systems where it has seen standards rise and identified what they had in common. Countries can make rapid progress, it argues, if they do the right thing—and at the right time.

  For starters, McKinsey says, throwing money at education does not seem to do much good, at least in those countries that already send all their young people to school (see chart). America, for example, increased its spending on schools by 21% between 2000 and 2007, while Britain pumped in 37% more funds. Yet in this period, according to PISA, standards in both countries slipped.

  Many school systems that were not showered with extra funds did much better. Schools in the state of Saxony, in Germany, in Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Poland have all raised their games. Even poor countries such as Chile and Ghana have made progress.

  What separates the big spenders from the improvers, McKinsey found, is the awareness that different types of school system respond to radically different types of reform. In countries where schools mainly seek to teach pupils to read, write and grasp some basic maths, centralization seems to work. All teachers should be directed to teach the same lessons from the same textbooks.

  Countries where schools have already attained a higher standard should become pickier in choosing teachers. Another study by McKinsey in 2007 concluded that making teaching a high-status profession was what boosted standards. For instance, schools could recruit teachers from among the best university graduates, an idea that was part of a series of measures published in England on November 24th.

  At the very top of the global educational league table — where only a handful of countries or systems within them manage to attain really high standards — decentralization is the name of the game. The authorities hand control over to teachers, most of whom are highly educated and motivated, so they can learn from each other and follow the best practices. When it comes to getting the very best grades, it seems that teacher still knows best.

Disponível em: <www.economist.com>.

 

Com base no trecho acima é correto concluir que, entre os anos de 2000 e 2007,