1. 阅读理解

A machine can now not only beat you at chess, it can also outperform you in debate. Last week, in a public debate in San Francisco, a software program called Project Debater beat its human opponents, including Noa Ovadia, Israel's former national debating champion.

Brilliant though it is, Project Debater has some weaknesses. It takes sentences from its library of documents and prebuilt arguments and strings them together. This can lead to the kinds of errors no human would make. Such wrinkles will no doubt be ironed out, yet they also point to a fundamental problem. As Kristian Hammond, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Northwestern University, put it: "There's never a stage at which the system knows what it's talking about."

What Hammond is referring to is the question of meaning, and meaning is central to what distinguishes the least intelligent of humans from the most intelligent of machines. A computer works with symbols. Its program specifies a set of rules to transform one string of symbols into another. But it does not specify what those symbols mean. Indeed, to a computer, meaning is irrelevant. Humans, in thinking, talking, reading and writing, also work with symbols. But for humans, meaning is everything. When we communicate, we communicate meaning. What matters is not just the outside of a string of symbols, but the inside too, not just how they are arranged but what they mean.

Meaning emerges through a process of social interaction, not of computation, interaction that shapes the content of the symbols in our heads. The rules that assign meaning lie not just inside our heads, but also outside, in society, in social memory, social conventions and social relations. It is this that distinguishes humans from machines. And that's why, however astonishing Project Debater may seem, the tradition that began with Socrates and Confucius will not end with artificial intelligence.

2. 阅读理解

    When "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" was first shown to the public last month, a group of excited animal activists gathered on Hollywood Boulevard. But they weren't there to throw red paint on fur-coat-wearing film stars. Instead, one activist, dressed in a full-body monkey suit, had arrived with a sign praising the filmmakers: "Thanks for not using real apes (猿)!"

    The creative team behind "Apes" used motion-capture (动作捕捉) technology to create digitalized animals, spending tens of millions of dollars on technology that I records an actor's performance and later processes it with computer graphics to create a final image (图像). In this case, one of a realistic-looking ape.

    Yet "Apes" is more exception than the rule. In fact, Hollywood has been hot on live animals lately. One nonprofit organization, which monitors the treatment or animals in filmed entertainment, is keeping tabs on more than 2,000 productions this year. Already, a number of films, including "Water for Elephants," "The Hangover Part Ⅱ" and "Zookeeper," have drawn the anger of activists who say the creatures acting in them haven't been treated properly.

    In some cases, it's not so much the treatment of the animals on set in the studio that has activists worried; it's the off-set training and living conditions that are raising concerns. And there are questions about the films made outside the States, which sometimes are not monitored as closely as productions filmed in the Sates.

3. 阅读理解
B
      Minutes after the last movie ended yesterday at the Plaza Theater, employees were busy sweeping up popcorns and gathering coke cups. It was a scene that had been repeated many times in the theater's 75-year history. This time, however, the cleanup was a little different. As one group of workers carried out the rubbish, another group began removing seats and other theater equipment in preparation for the building's end.
The film classic The Last Picture Show was the last movie shown in the old theater. Though the movie is 30 years old, most of the 250 seats were filled with teary-eyed audience wanting to say good-bye to the old building. Theater owner Ed Bradford said he chose the movie because it seemed appropriate. The movie is set in a small town where the only movie theater is preparing to close down.
Bradford said that large modern theaters in the city made it impossible for the Plaza to compete. He added that the theater's location(位置) was also a reason. “This used to be the center of town,” he said. “Now the area is mostly office buildings and warehouses.”
Last week some city officials suggested the city might be interested in turning the old theater into a museum and public meeting place. However, these plans were abandoned because of financial problems. Bradford sold the building and land to a local development firm, which plans to build a shopping complex on the land where the theater is located.
The theater audience said good-by as Bradford locked the doors for the last time. After 75 years the Plaza Theater has shown its last movie. The theater will be missed.