2017年12月六级第2套仔细阅读 Passage 1 原文翻译及答案解析

In the beginning of the movie l, Robot, a robot has to decide whom to save after two cars plunge into the water-Del Spooner or a child. Even though Spooner screams "Save her Save her!" The robot rescues him because it calculates that he has a 45 percent chance of survival compared to Sarah's 11 percent. The robot's decision and its calculated approach raise an important question: would humans make the same choice? And which choice would we want our robotic counterparts to make?

电影《我，机器人》开头，一个机器人必须在两辆车坠入水中后决定救谁——德尔·斯普纳还是一个孩子。尽管斯普纳尖叫着“救她！救她！”，机器人救了他，因为它计算出他生存的概率为45%，而莎拉的概率为11%。机器人的决策及其计算方式提出了一个重要问题：人类会做出同样的选择吗？我们希望我们的机器人伙伴做出哪种选择？

Isaac Asimov evaded the whole notion of morality in devising his three laws of robotics, which hold that 1. Robots cannot harm humans or allow humans to come to harm; 2. Robots must obey humans, except where the order would conflict with law 1; and 3. Robots must act in self-preservation, unless doing so conflicts with laws 1 or 2. These laws are programmed into Asimov's robots-they don't have to think, judge, or value. They don't have to like humans or believe that hurting them is wrong or bad. They simply don't do it.

艾萨克·阿西莫夫在设计他的机器人三定律时回避了道德的概念，这些定律规定：1. 机器人不得伤害人类或允许人类受到伤害；2. 机器人必须服从人类，除非该命令与第一定律冲突；3. 机器人必须自我保存，除非这样做与第一或第二定律冲突。这些定律被编程进阿西莫夫的机器人中——它们无需思考、判断或评估。它们不需要喜欢人类，也不需要认为伤害人类是错误或糟糕的。它们只是不去做。

The robot who rescues Spooner's life in I, Robot follows Asimov's zeroth law: robots cannot harm humanity(as opposed to individual humans) or allow humanity to come to harm--an expansion of the first law that allows robots to determine what's in the greater good. Under the first law, a robot could not harm a dangerous gunman, but under the zeroth law, a robot could kill the gunman to save others.

在《我，机器人》中救了斯普纳一命的机器人遵循阿西莫夫的第零定律：机器人不得伤害人类整体（相对于个体人类）或允许人类整体受到伤害——这是对第一定律的扩展，允许机器人判断什么对大多数人有利。在第一定律下，机器人不能伤害危险的持枪歹徒，但在第零定律下，机器人可以杀死歹徒来拯救他人。

Whether it's possible to program a robot with safeguards such as Asimov's laws is debatable. A word such as "harm" is vague (what about emotional harm? Is replacing a human employ harm?), and abstract concepts present coding problems. The robots in Asimov's fiction expose complications and loopholes in the three laws, and even when the laws work, robots still have to assess the situation.

是否可以为机器人编程加入如阿西莫夫定律这样的保护措施是值得商榷的。像“伤害”这样的词是模糊的（情感伤害呢？取代人类雇员是伤害吗？），抽象概念带来了编码问题。阿西莫夫小说中的机器人暴露了三定律的复杂性和漏洞，即使定律有效，机器人仍需评估情况。

Assessing situations can be complicated. A robot has to identify the players, conditions, and possible outcomes for various scenarios. It's doubtful that a computer program can do that-at least, not without some undesirable results. A roboticist at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory programmed a robot to save human proxies (替身) called "H-bots" from danger.

评估情况可能很复杂。机器人必须识别参与者、条件和各种可能结果的场景。计算机程序能否做到这一点令人怀疑——至少，没有一些不良结果是不可能的。布里斯托尔机器人实验室的一位机器人学家编程让机器人拯救被称为“H-bots”的人类替身免受危险。

When one H-bot headed for danger, the robot successfully pushed it out of the way. But when two H-bots became imperiled, the robot choked 42 percent of the time, unable to decide which to save and letting them both "die. "The experiment highlights the importance of morality: without it, how can a robot decide whom to save or what's best for humanity, especially if it can't calculate survival odds?

当一个H-bot走向危险时，机器人成功将其推开。但当两个H-bot陷入危险时，机器人有42%的时间会卡住，无法决定救哪个，导致两者都“死亡”。该实验突显了道德的重要性：没有道德，机器人如何决定救谁或什么对人类最有利，尤其是当它无法计算生存概率时？