Já é nosso aluno? Acesse a plataforma!

Questões de inglês - ITA

Questão 16
2016Inglês

Your Facial Bone Structure Has a Big Influence on How People See You (…) Selfies, headshots, mug shots – 1photos of oneself convey more these days than snapshots ever did back in the Kodak era. 2Most digitally minded people continually post and update pictures of themselves at professional, social media and dating sites such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Match.com and Tinder. For better or worse, viewers then tend to make snap judgments about someone’s personality or character from a single shot. As such, 3it can be a stressful task to select the photo that conveys the best impression of ourselves. 4For those of us seeking to appear friendly and trustworthy to others, a new study underscores an old, chipper piece of advice: Put on a happy face. A newly published series of experiments by cognitive neuroscientists at New York University is reinforcing the relevance of facial expressions to perceptions of characteristics such as trustworthiness and friendliness. 5More importantly, the research also revealed the unexpected finding that perceptions of abilities such as physical strength are not dependent on facial expressions but rather on facial bone structure. The team’s first experiment featured photographs of 10 different people presenting five different facial expressions each. Study subjects rated how friendly, trustworthy or strong the person in each photo appeared. A separate group of subjects scored each face on an emotional scale from “very angry” to “very happy.” And three experts not involved in either of the previous two ratings to avoid confounding results calculated the facial width-to-height ratio for each face. 6An analysis revealed that participants generally ranked people with a happy expression as friendly and trustworthy but not those with angry expressions. 7Surprisingly, participants did not rank faces as indicative of physical strength based on facial expression but graded faces that were very broad as that of a strong individual. In a second survey facial expression and facial structure were manipulated in computer-generated faces. Participants rated each face for the same traits as in the first survey, with the addition of a rating for warmth. Again, people thought a happy expression, but not an angry one, indicated friendliness, trustworthiness — and in this case, warmth. The researchers then showed two additional sets of participants the same faces, this time either with areas relevant to facial expressions obscured or the width cropped. In the first variation, for faces lacking emotional cues, people could no longer perceive personality traits but could still perceive strength based on width. Similarly, for those faces lacking structural cues, people could no longer perceive strength but could still perceive personality traits based on facial expressions. In a third iteration of the survey participants had to pick four faces out of a lineup of eight faces varied for expression and width that they might select either as their financial advisor or as the winner of a power-lifting competition. As might be expected, 8participants picked faces with happier expressions as financial advisors and 9selected broader faces as belonging to power-lifting champs. In a final survey the researchers generated more than 100 variations of one individual “base face” by varying facial features. Participants saw two faces at a time, and then picked one as either trustworthy or high in ability or as a good financial advisor or power-lifting winner. Using these results, a computer then created an average face for each of these four categories, which were shown to a separate set of participants who had to pick which face appeared either more trustworthy or stronger. Most of the participants found the computer-generated averages to be good representations of trustworthiness or strength – 10and generally saw the average “financial advisor” face as more trustworthy and the “powerlifter” face as stronger. The findings from all four surveys were published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin on June 18. Adaptado de www.scientific.american.com/article/your-facial-bone-strecture-has-a-big-influence-on-how-people-see-you.(acesso em 20/8/2015) De acordo com o texto,  

Questão 25
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)            [...] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. [...]             So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...]            So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.            The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.            They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.            To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.            More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.            Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.            Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018  De acordo com o texto, em comparação com 1976, atualmente nós compramos.

Questão 26
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           [...] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. [...]            So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...]           So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.           The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.           They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.           To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.           More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.           Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.           Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018   De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que

Questão 27
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)            [...] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. [...]             So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...]            So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.            The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.            They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.            To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.            More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.            Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.            Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018 De acordo com o texto,

Questão 28
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           [...] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. [...]           So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...]           So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.           The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.           They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.           To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.           More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.           Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.           Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018   De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que o autor sustenta que

Questão 29
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           [...] A picture of Brighton beach in 1976, featured in the Guardian a few weeks ago, appeared to show an alien race. Almost everyone was slim. I mentioned it on social media, then went on holiday. When I returned, I found that people were still debating it. The heated discussion prompted me to read more. How have we grown so fat, so fast? To my astonishment, almost every explanation proposed in the thread turned out to be untrue. [...] The obious explanation, many on social media insisted, is that we’re eating more. [...]           So here’s the first big surprise: we ate more in 1976. According to government figures, we currently consume an average of 2,130 kilocalories a day, a figure that appears to include sweets and alcohol. But in 1976, we consumed 2,280 kcal excluding alcohol and sweets, or 2,590 kcal when they’re included. I have found no reason to disbelieve the figures.[...]           So what has happened? The light begins to dawn when you look at the nutrition figures in more detail. Yes, we ate more in 1976, but differently. Today, we buy half as much fresh milk per person, but five times more yoghurt, three times more ice cream and – wait for it – 39 times as many dairy desserts. We buy half as many eggs as in 1976, but a third more breakfast cereals and twice the cereal snacks; half the total potatoes, but three times the crisps. While our direct purchases of sugar have sharply declined, the sugar we consume in drinks and confectionery is likely to have rocketed (there are purchase numbers only from 1992, at which point they were rising rapidly. Perhaps, as we consumed just 9kcal a day in the form of drinks in 1976, no one thought the numbers were worth collecting.) In other words, the opportunities to load our food with sugar have boomed. As some experts have long proposed, this seems to be the issue.           The shift has not happened by accident. As Jacques Peretti argued in his film The Men Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products that use sugar to bypass our natural appetite control mechanisms, and in packaging and promoting these products to break down what remains of our defences, including through the use of subliminal scents. They employ an army of food scientists and psychologists to trick us into eating more than we need, while their advertisers use the latest findings in neuroscience to overcome our resistance.           They hire biddable scientists and thinktanks to confuse us about the causes of obesity. Above all, just as the tobacco companies did with smoking, they promote the idea that weight is a question of “personal responsibility”. After spending billions on overriding our willpower, they blame us for failing to exercise it.           To judge by the debate the 1976 photograph triggered, it works. “There are no excuses. Take responsibility for your own lives, people!” “No one force feeds you junk food, it’s personal choice. We’re not lemmings.” “Sometimes I think having free healthcare is a mistake. It’s everyone’s right to be lazy and fat because there is a sense of entitlement about getting fixed.” The thrill of disapproval chimes disastrously with industry propaganda. We delight in blaming the victims.           More alarmingly, according to a paper in the Lancet, more than 90% of policymakers believe that “personal motivation” is “a strong or very strong influence on the rise of obesity”. Such people propose no mechanism by which the 61% of English people who are overweight or obese have lost their willpower. But this improbable explanation seems immune to evidence.           Perhaps this is because obesophobia is often a fatly-disguised form of snobbery. In most rich nations, obesity rates are much higher at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. They correlate strongly with inequality, which helps to explain why the UK’s incidence is greater than in most European and OECD nations. The scientific literature shows how the lower spending power, stress, anxiety and depression associated with low social status makes people more vulnerable to bad diets.           Just as jobless people are blamed for structural unemployment, and indebted people are blamed for impossible housing costs, fat people are blamed for a societal problem. But yes, willpower needs to be exercised – by governments. Yes, we need personal responsibility – on the part of policymakers. And yes, control needs to be exerted – over those who have discovered our weaknesses and ruthlessly exploit them. Adaptado de https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people. Acesso em: ago, 2018.   Assinale a alternativa que pode substituir ‘as’ na sentença “As Jack Peretti argued in this film The Man Who Made Us Fat, food companies have invested heavily in designing products [...]” (linhas 19-20) mantendo o mesmo sentido do texto e a correção gramatical.

Questão 33
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy.  It is the key to self-driving cars, the Amazon Alexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses.           Technology is rarely good nor evil — it’s all in how humans use it. AI could do an enormous amount of good and solve some of the world’s hardest problems, but that same power could be turned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses — and do a lot of nefarious things we can’t yet foresee.           Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We don’t want overreaching regulation that goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty.           Importantly, we’re at the beginning of a new era in government — one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency — one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too “dumb” to monitor algorithms in a timely way.           Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesn’t exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior.           It’s just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell if Airbnb hosts are illegally turning down minorities or if Facebook’s human editors are squashing conservative news headlines.           The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software — open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for “off the rails” behaviors and unexpected results.           Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we can’t rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I don’t want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency. [...]           Let’s do this before bad regulations get enacted — and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23> Acesso em: jun. 2018.   Assinale a alternativa INCORRETA. No texto, o autor afirma que

Questão 34
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy.  It is the key to self-driving cars, the Amazon Alexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses.            Technology is rarely good nor evil — it’s all in how humans use it. AI could do an enormous amount of good and solve some of the world’s hardest problems, but that same power could be turned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses — and do a lot of nefarious things we can’t yet foresee.           Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We don’t want overreaching regulation that goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty.           Importantly, we’re at the beginning of a new era in government — one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency — one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too “dumb” to monitor algorithms in a timely way.           Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesn’t exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior.           It’s just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell if Airbnb hosts are illegally turning down minorities or if Facebook’s human editors are squashing conservative news headlines.           The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software — open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for “off the rails” behaviors and unexpected results.           Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we can’t rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I don’t want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency. [...]           Let’s do this before bad regulations get enacted — and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23> Acesso em: jun. 2018.   O autor defende uma regulação definida por software, pois I.   a considera mais adequada para monitorar indústrias orientadas por software do que regulações impostas por equipes de reguladores humanos. II.  algoritmos podem procurar por detalhes e padrões que os seres humanos talvez nunca pudessem descobrir, mas que, não obstante, são indicativos de abusos. III.  precisamos de tecnologia que seja capaz de identificar comportamento como o do Facebook que, ao explorar vieses políticos, difundiu manchetes de partidos conservadores. IV. é importante que algoritmos monitorem o papel dos seres humanos em empresas orientadas por software para evitar que minorias sejam prejudicadas na utilização de serviços.  

Questão 35
2019Inglês

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy.  It is the key to self-driving cars, the Amazon Alexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses.           Technology is rarely good nor evil — it’s all in how humans use it. AI could do an enormous amount of good and solve some of the world’s hardest problems, but that same power could be turned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses — and do a lot of nefarious things we can’t yet foresee.           Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We don’t want overreaching regulation that goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty.           Importantly, we’re at the beginning of a new era in government — one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency — one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too “dumb” to monitor algorithms in a timely way.           Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesn’t exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior.           It’s just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell if Airbnb hosts are illegally turning down minorities or if Facebook’s human editors are squashing conservative news headlines.           The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software — open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for “off the rails” behaviors and unexpected results.           Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we can’t rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I don’t want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency. [...]           Let’s do this before bad regulations get enacted — and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23> Acesso em: jun. 2018. A palavra ou expressão sublinhada na primeira coluna, pode ser substituída pela palavra ou expressão na segunda coluna em todas as opções, mantendo o mesmo sentido, EXCETO em:

Questão 36
2019InglêsÚnico

(ITA 2019 - 1ª Fase)           Artificial intelligence (AI) is going to play an enormous role in our lives and in the global economy.  It is the key to self-driving cars, the Amazon Alexa in your home, autonomous trading desks on Wall Street, innovation in medicine, and cyberwar defenses.           Technology is rarely good nor evil — it’s all in how humans use it. AI could do an enormous amount of good and solve some of the world’s hardest problems, but that same power could be turned against us. AI could be set up to inflict bias based on race or beliefs, invade our privacy, learn about and exploit our personal weaknesses — and do a lot of nefarious things we can’t yet foresee.           Which means that our policymakers must understand and help guide AI so it benefits society. [...] We don’t want overreaching regulation that goes beyond keeping us safe and ends up stifling innovation. Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop atomic energy, today the U.S. gets only 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. So while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA, I would prefer to see it created as a public-private partnership. Washington should bring in AI experts from the tech industry to a federal agency designed to understand and direct AI and to inform lawmakers. Perhaps the AI experts would rotate through Washington on a kind of public service tour of duty.           Importantly, we’re at the beginning of a new era in government — one where governance is software-defined. The nature of AI and algorithms means we need to develop a new kind of agency — one that includes both humans and software. The software will help monitor algorithms. Existing, old-school regulations that rely on manual enforcement are too cumbersome to keep up with technology and too “dumb” to monitor algorithms in a timely way.           Software-defined regulation can monitor software-driven industries better than regulations enforced by squads of regulators. Algorithms can continuously watch emerging utilities such as Facebook, looking for details and patterns that humans might never catch, but nonetheless signal abuses. If Congress wants to make sure Facebook doesn’t exploit political biases, it could direct the FAIA to write an algorithm to look for the behavior.           It’s just as important to have algorithms that keep an eye on the role of humans inside these companies. We want technology that can tell if Airbnb hosts are illegally turning down minorities or if Facebook’s human editors are squashing conservative news headlines.           The watchdog algorithms can be like open-source software — open to examination by anyone, while the companies keep private proprietary algorithms and data. If the algorithms are public, anyone can run various datasets against them and analyze for “off the rails” behaviors and unexpected results.           Clearly, AI needs some governance. As Facebook is proving, we can’t rely on companies to monitor and regulate themselves. Public companies, especially, are incentivized to make the biggest profits possible, and their algorithms will optimize for financial goals, not societal goals. But as a tech investor, I don’t want to see an ill-informed Congress set up regulatory schemes for social networks, search and other key services that then make our dynamic tech companies as dull and bureaucratic as electric companies. [...] Technology companies and policymakers need to come together soon and share ideas about AI governance and the establishment of a software-driven AI agency. [...]           Let’s do this before bad regulations get enacted — and before AI gets away from us and does more damage. We have a chance right now to tee up AI so it does tremendous good. To unleash it in a positive direction, we need to get the checks and balances in place right now. Adaptado de: <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/artificial-intelligence-is-too-powerful-to-be-left-to-facebook-amazon-and-other-tech-giants-2018-04-23> Acesso em: jun. 2018. Observe o uso da palavra 'so' nas frases abaixo: I- (...) and helps guide Al so it benefits society(...) (linha 8) II- Regulators helped make it so difficult to develop(...) (linha 9 e 10) III- So, while we need a Federal Artificial Intelligence Agency, or FAIA(...) (linha 10 e 11) Assinale a alternativa que explica, respectivamente, o uso de 'so'.