雅思13test1passage3閱讀真題原文翻譯

雅思13test1passage3閱讀真題原文翻譯

第1段

The Painting Fool is one of a growing number of computer programs which,so their makers claim,possess creative talents.Classical music by an artificial composer has had audiences enraptured,and even tricked them into believing a human was behind the score.Artworks painted by a robot have sold for thousands of dollars and been hung in prestigious galleries.And software has been built which creates art that could not have been imagined by the programmer.

“繪畫愚人”是越來越多擁有創(chuàng)造性天賦的(至少它們的創(chuàng)造者是這么說的)計算機程序之一。人工智能作曲家所創(chuàng)作的古典音樂令觀眾陶醉其中，甚至讓他們誤以為這是某個人類的杰作。機器人繪畫的藝術(shù)品曾賣出上千美元的高價，并被掛在著名的藝術(shù)館中展覽。還有一些軟件創(chuàng)造出其程序員從來都不曾想象過的藝術(shù)品。

第2段

Human beings are the only species to perform sophisticated creative acts regularly.If we can break this process down into computer code,where does that leave human creativity?‘This is a question at the very core of humanity,’says Geraint Wiggins,a computational creativity researcher at Goldsmiths,University of London.‘It scares a lot of people.They are worried that it is taking something special away from what it means to be human.’

人類是唯一能夠經(jīng)常完成復(fù)雜而又富有創(chuàng)造性行為的物種。如果我們將該過程分解為計算機代碼，那么這將人類的創(chuàng)造力置于何處呢?“這是一個關(guān)乎人性最核心內(nèi)容的問題”，倫敦大學(xué)史密斯學(xué)院的一位計算機創(chuàng)造力研究者Geraint Wiggins說到，“它嚇到了許多人。他們擔(dān)心這將剝奪一些人之所以為人的特殊東西”。

第3段

To some extent,we are all familiar with computerised art.The question is:where does the work of the artist stop and the creativity of the computer begin?Consider one of the oldest machine artists,Aaron,a robot that has had paintings exhibited in London’s Tate Modern and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.Aaron can pick up a paintbrush and paint on canvas on its own.Impressive perhaps,but it is still little more than a tool to realise the programmer’s own creative ideas.

從某種程度上來說，我們都對計算機藝術(shù)十分熟悉。問題在于，藝術(shù)家的工作止于何處，而計算機的創(chuàng)造力又從何處開始?想想最古老的機器藝術(shù)家之一，Aaron。其創(chuàng)作的畫作被陳列在倫敦泰特現(xiàn)代美術(shù)館和舊金山現(xiàn)代藝術(shù)博物館中。Aaron能獨自拿起畫筆，并在帆布上作畫。或許這令人驚嘆，但它仍然不過是一件實現(xiàn)程序員自身創(chuàng)造性想法的工具。

第4段

Simon Colton,the designer of the Painting Fool,is keen to make sure his creation doesn’t attract the same criticism.Unlike earlier‘a(chǎn)rtists’such as Aaron,the Painting Fool only needs minimal direction and can come up with its own concepts by going online for material.The software runs its own web searches and trawls through social media sites.It is now beginning to display a kind of imagination too,creating pictures from scratch.One of its original works is a series of fuzzy landscapes,depicting trees and sky.While some might say they have a mechanical look,Colton argues that such reactions arise from people’s double standards towards software-produced and human-produced art.After all,he says,consider that the Painting Fool painted the landscapes without referring to a photo.‘If a child painted a new scene from its head,you’d say it has a certain level of imagination,’he points out.‘The same should be true of a machine.’Software bugs can also lead to unexpected results.Some of the Painting Fool’s paintings of a chair came out in black and white,thanks to a technical glitch.This gives the work an eerie,ghostlike quality.Human artists like the renowned Ellsworth Kelly are lauded for limiting their colour palette–so why should computers be any different?

“繪畫愚人”的設(shè)計者Simon Colton渴望確保他的作品不會引來同樣的批評。不像諸如Aaron這樣的早期藝術(shù)家，“繪畫愚人”只需要極少的指示，并且能夠通過在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上尋找材料提出其自己的想法。該軟件運行自己的網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索功能，瀏覽社交媒體的各個頁面。它現(xiàn)在也開始展示出某種想象力，從零創(chuàng)作圖片。其原創(chuàng)作品之一是一系列描繪樹木和天空的朦朧風(fēng)景畫。雖然一些人可能會說它們看起來有些機械，但Colton認(rèn)為這種反應(yīng)源自人們對于軟件創(chuàng)作和人類創(chuàng)作的藝術(shù)品的雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。畢竟，他說，要考慮到“繪畫愚人”在描繪風(fēng)景的時候并沒有參考照片?！叭绻粋€孩子從自己的頭腦中描繪出一副嶄新的景象，你會說它有一定程度的想象力”，他指出。”同樣的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也應(yīng)該適用于機器“。軟件錯誤也能造成一些出乎意料的結(jié)果。由于技術(shù)故障，一些“繪畫愚人”的作品將椅子畫成了黑白色。這賦予畫作一種怪誕、詭異的感覺。諸如Ellsworth Kelly這樣著名的人類藝術(shù)家就因為盡量少的使用顏色而受到傳頌-所以為什么計算機就應(yīng)該有所不同呢?

第5段

Researchers like Colton don’t believe it is right to measure machine creativity directly to that of humans who‘have had millennia to develop our skills’.Others,though,are fascinated by the prospect that a computer might create something as original and subtle as our best artists.So far,only one has come close.Composer David Cope invented a program called Experiments in Musical Intelligence,or EMI.Not only did EMI create compositions in Cope’s style,but also that of the most revered classical composers,including Bach,Chopin and Mozart.Audiences were moved to tears,and EMI even fooled classical music experts into thinking they were hearing genuine Bach.Not everyone was impressed however.Some,such as Wiggins,have blasted Cope’s work as pseudoscience,and condemned him for his deliberately vague explanation of how the software worked.Meanwhile,Douglas Hofstadter of Indiana University said EMI created replicas which still rely completely on the original artist’s creative impulses.When audiences found out the truth they were often outraged with Cope,and one music lover even tried to punch him.Amid such controversy,Cope destroyed EMI’s vital databases.

像Colton這樣的研究者認(rèn)為，將機器的創(chuàng)造力直接與人類相比并不正確，因為人類已經(jīng)用了上千年來提升我們的技巧。然而，另一些人則癡迷于這樣的前景，即計算機可能創(chuàng)造出與我們最好的藝術(shù)家同樣富有創(chuàng)造力、同樣巧妙的作品。到目前為止，只有一位接近這一目標(biāo)。作曲家David Cope發(fā)明了一個叫做“音樂智能實驗”的程序，簡稱為EMI。EMI不僅可以創(chuàng)作Cope風(fēng)格的樂曲，而且還能模仿最受尊崇的古典音樂作曲家的作品，包括巴赫、肖邦和莫扎特。觀眾被感動至流淚。EMI甚至讓古典音樂專家誤以為他們聽到的是真正的巴赫作品。然而，并非每個人都為此驚嘆。一些人，比如Wiggins，就猛烈抨擊Cope的作品是偽科學(xué)，并譴責(zé)他對于該軟件的工作方式故意含糊其辭。與此同時，印第安納大學(xué)的Douglas Hofstadter認(rèn)為，EMI所創(chuàng)作的仿制品仍然完全依賴于原本藝術(shù)家的創(chuàng)作沖動。當(dāng)聽眾發(fā)現(xiàn)真相時，他們經(jīng)常會對Cope感到異常地憤怒。一名音樂愛好者甚至想要揍他。在這些爭議之中，Cope銷毀了EMI至關(guān)重要的數(shù)據(jù)庫。

第6段

But why did so many people love the music,yet recoil when they discovered how it was composed?A study by computer scientist David Moffat of Glasgow Caledonian University provides a clue.He asked both expert musicians and non-experts to assess six compositions.The participants weren’t told beforehand whether the tunes were composed by humans or computers,but were asked to guess,and then rate how much they liked each one.People who thought the composer was a computer tended to dislike the piece more than those who believed it was human.This was true even among the experts,who might have been expected to be more objective in their analyses.

但是，為什么會有如此多的人喜歡音樂，卻在發(fā)現(xiàn)它的創(chuàng)作方式時感到厭惡呢?格拉斯哥卡利多尼亞大學(xué)的計算機科學(xué)家David Moffat所進行的一項研究為我們提供了線索。他讓專業(yè)音樂家和非專業(yè)人員評估六首作品。參與者事先未被告知這些音樂是由人類所創(chuàng)作的還是由計算機所創(chuàng)作的，但被要求進行猜測，然后根據(jù)他們對每一首的喜歡程度進行分級。認(rèn)為創(chuàng)作者是計算機的人們通常比那些認(rèn)為創(chuàng)作者是人類的人更加不喜歡該樂曲。甚至在專家中也是如此。而人們原本期待他們的分析會更加客觀。

第7段

Where does this prejudice come from?Paul Bloom of Yale University has a suggestion:he reckons part of the pleasure we get from art stems from the creative process behind the work.This can give it an‘irresistible essence’,says Bloom.Meanwhile,experiments by Justin Kruger of New York University have shown that people’s enjoyment of an artwork increases if they think more time and effort was needed to create it.Similarly,Colton thinks that when people experience art,they wonder what the artist might have been thinking or what the artist is trying to tell them.It seems obvious,therefore,that with computers producing art,this speculation is cut short–there’s nothing to explore.But as technology becomes increasingly complex,finding those greater depths in computer art could become possible.This is precisely why Colton asks the Painting Fool to tap into online social networks for its inspiration:hopefully this way it will choose themes that will already be meaningful to us.

這種偏見來自何處呢?耶魯大學(xué)的Paul Bloom提出如下見解：他認(rèn)為我們從藝術(shù)中獲得的部分樂趣來源于其背后的創(chuàng)作過程。這能夠賦予它一種“無法抗拒的本質(zhì)”，Bloom說。與此同時，紐約大學(xué)Justin Kruger所進行的實驗表明，如果人們認(rèn)為創(chuàng)作一件藝術(shù)品所需要的時間和努力更多，那么他們就會更加欣賞它。相似的，Colton認(rèn)為當(dāng)人們體驗藝術(shù)時，他們會好奇藝術(shù)家當(dāng)時在想什么，或者嘗試告訴他們什么。因此，原因似乎很明顯，如果是計算機所創(chuàng)作的藝術(shù)，這一推測過程被縮短了-沒有什么東西可供探索。但隨著技術(shù)變得越來越復(fù)雜，在計算機藝術(shù)品中探索更為深入的內(nèi)涵也許會成為可能。這也正是Colton讓“繪畫愚人”搜索社交媒體以獲取靈感的原因：希望通過這種方式，它可以選擇那些對我們來說已經(jīng)具有意義的主題。

>> 雅思 托福 免費測試、量身規(guī)劃、讓英語學(xué)習(xí)不再困難<<