阅读理解考研英语一真题
阅读理解考研英语一真题1
Text 3
Any fair-minded asssment of the dangers of the deal between Britain's National Health Service (NHS) and DeepMind must start by acknowledging that both sides mean well. DeepMind is one of the leading artificial intelligence (AI) panies in the world. The potential of this work applied to healthcare is very great, but it could also lead to further concentration of power in the tech giants. It Is against that background that the information missioner, Elizabeth Denham, has issued her damning verdict against the Royal Free hospital trust under the NHS, which handed over to DeepMind the records of 1.6 million patients In 20XX on the basis of a vague agreement which took far too little account of the patients' rights and their expectations of privacy.
DeepMind has almost apologized. The NHS trust has mended its ways. Further arrangements- and there may be many-between the NHS and DeepMind will be carefully scrutinid to ensure that all necessary permissions have been asked of patients and all unnecessary data has been cleaned. There are lessons about informed patient connt to learn. But privacy is not the only angle in this ca and not even the most important. Ms Denham cho to concentrate the blame on the NHS trust, since under existing law it “controlled” the data and DeepMind merely “procesd" it. But this distinction miss the point that it is processing and aggregation, not the mere posssion of bits, that gives the data value.
The great question is who should benefit from the analysis of all the data that our lives now generate. Privacy law builds on the concept of damage to an individual from identifiable knowledge about them. That miss the way the surveillance economy works. The data of an individual there gains its value only when it is pared with the data of countless millions more.
The u of privacy law to curb the tech giants in this instance feels slightly maladapted. This practice does not address the real worry. It is not enough to say that the algorithms DeepMind develops will benefit patients and save lives. What matters is that they will belong to a private monopoly which developed them using public resources. If software promis to save lives on the scale that dugs now can, big data may be expected to behave as a big pharm has done. We are still at the beginning of this revolution and small choices now may turn out to have gigantic conquences later. A long struggle will be needed to avoid a future of digital feudalism. Ms Denham's report is a wele start.
31.Wha is true of the agreement between the NHS and DeepMind ?
[A] It caud conflicts among tech giants.
[B] It failed to pay due attention to patient’s rights.
[C] It fell short of the latter's expectations
freestyle什么意思
[D] It put both sides into a dangerous situation.
32. The NHS trust responded to Denham's verdict with
[A] empty promis.
[B] tough resistance.
[C] necessary adjustments.
[D] sincere apologies.
phenomena33.The author argues in Paragraph 2 that
[A] privacy protection must be cured at all costs.
[B] leaking patients' data is wor than lling it.
[C] making profits from patients' data is illegal.
[D] the value of data es from the processing of itfine怎么读
新品发布会 英文34.According to the last paragraph, the real worry arising from this deal is
[A] the vicious rivalry among big pharmas.
[B] the ineffective enforcement of privacy law.continued
bern[C] the uncontrolled u of new software.
[D] the monopoly of big data by tech giants.东方快车翻译
35.The author's attitude toward the application of AI to healthcare is
翻译器中文翻英文
[A] ambiguous.
[B] cautious.
令牌环
[C] appreciative.
[D] contemptuous.
阅读理解考研英语一真题2
Text 3
The journal Science is adding an extra source at Peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNott announced today. The Follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that Mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the Published rearch findings.
vehicle是什么意思"Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,"writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the Journal has appointed ven experts to a statistics board of reviewing Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the Journal's editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review the
Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said,"The creation of the'statistics board'was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific rearch and is part of Scien
ce's overall drive to increa reproducibility in the rearch we publish."
Giovanni Parmigiani，a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to "play primarily on advisory role." He agreed to join becau he "found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itlf, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science."
