Questões sobre Interpretação de texto | Reading comprehension

        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). 

        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). 

        Many believe the Internet negatively affects mental health, but a new study challenges this assumption. Conducted by Dr. Matti Vuorre and his team at Tilburg University and published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior magazine, the study analyzed data from more than two million people across 168 countries. The findings suggest that those who have Internet access and actively use it report higher well-being across areas like life satisfaction, social life, and economic stability. Remarkably, 85% of the data analyses revealed that Internet users generally experience greater well-being than non-users. Dr. Vuorre emphasized that although Internet use is often blamed for mental health issues, this large-scale study suggests a positive correlation between access to the Internet and improved well-being.

         The study used Gallup World Poll data to assess well-being, looking at whether Internet access was associated with positive outcomes on a global scale. Dr. Vuorre acknowledged the complexity of analyzing such extensive data, so his team conducted tens of thousands of statistical tests to ensure reliability. While the study adjusts for factors like income and access to healthcare, which can independently boost well-being, Internet access still appeared to make a positive difference. However, Dr. Markus Appel, a psychology professor not involved in the study, noted that Internet use’s impact on well-being may vary greatly based on individual use. Appel pointed out that the Internet itself is not inherently good or bad for mental health; rather, its effects depend on how people choose to use it.

         The study calls for a nuanced view of Internet use. Dr. Vuorre emphasized that the Internet supports various activities, from online banking and shopping to social interactions and news consumption, each with unique effects on well-being. Yet, the rapid shift to digital life leaves limited time to study these impacts fully. Vuorre noted that caution is warranted in framing policies around Internet use. Although some research highlights negative effects of social media, especially for younger people, this study suggests that Internet access may be a valuable resource, enhancing certain aspects of well-being worldwide.

Internet:<edition.cnn.com>  (adapted).