Gabarito disponível
Texto-base:
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul, leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper, published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society, especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded, expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory, rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases would place the responsibility on developers to prove their technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards” that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones. This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm. This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet: <ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the items that follow.
According to the experts, the AI Safety Institute’s funding is significantly lower than that of the Food and Drug Administration.
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul, leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper, published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society, especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded, expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory, rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases would place the responsibility on developers to prove their technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards” that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones. This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm. This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet: <ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the items that follow.
According to the experts, the AI Safety Institute’s funding is significantly lower than that of the Food and Drug Administration.
O orçamento do AI Safety Institute é muito menor que o da FDA.
O texto compara US$ 10 milhões do AI Safety Institute com US$ 6,7 bilhões da FDA, "in stark contrast". Isso confirma que o financiamento do instituto é significativamente menor.
Análise das alternativas
Certo: coincide com os valores e com a ideia de grande disparidade. Errado: contrariaria os números citados.
Referência: Reading comprehension: dados numéricos.
Resolução comentada do VaiConcursos.