Questões de Concurso Público Câmara dos Deputados 2023 para Analista Legislativo - Informática Legislativa - Manhã
Foram encontradas 5 questões
Ano: 2023
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
Câmara dos Deputados
Prova:
FGV - 2023 - Câmara dos Deputados - Analista Legislativo - Informática Legislativa - Manhã |
Q2326027
Inglês
Texto associado
Read Text I and answer the question that follow it.
Text I
Generative Art – What’s real?
There is nothing new about the concept and creation of
‘artificial intelligence art’ or ‘generative art’. However, discussion
of its legal and ethical or societal implications (both intended and
unintended) hit the headlines last week.
Boris Eldagsen refused his Sony World Photography Award
2023 prize in the creative open category on the basis that his
entry was the product of artificial intelligence. Mr Eldagsen
himself has sparked the latest debate by claiming that “AI is not
photography” and that the rationale for entering the Awards with
the work in question was “…to find out if the competitions are
prepared for AI images to enter. They are not”.
The reaction of the World Photography Organisation (running
the Sony Awards) has been to acknowledge the need for an
element of human involvement, which is the crux of the debate:
“While elements of AI practices are relevant in artistic contexts of
image-making, the Awards always have been and will continue to
be a platform for championing the excellence and skill of
photographers and artists working in this medium”.
[…]
The conventional (and long assumed) approach has been to
recognise the importance of the human hand to an artwork. The
question then is: to what extent is the human creator or inputter
the ‘artist’ as opposed to the generative system or is the system
merely representing the human creator or inputter’s artistic
idea? Flowing from that question is what that might then mean in
terms of the ownership and value of such works. The debate
looks set to continue in this particular context of imagery creation
and reproduction coinciding with the increasing availability and
use of consumer-grade AI image generation programmes, and
the natural inclination of artists to continue to create.
Adapted from https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/insight/generative-art-whats-real/
Based on Text I, mark the statements below as true (T) or
false (F).
( ) The dawning of generative art has given rise to a quandary.
( ) The winner mentioned was thrilled with the prize he was awarded.
( ) The organization responsible for the award stood by their earlier statement that AI yields finer art than that of humans.
The statements are, respectively,
( ) The dawning of generative art has given rise to a quandary.
( ) The winner mentioned was thrilled with the prize he was awarded.
( ) The organization responsible for the award stood by their earlier statement that AI yields finer art than that of humans.
The statements are, respectively,
Ano: 2023
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
Câmara dos Deputados
Prova:
FGV - 2023 - Câmara dos Deputados - Analista Legislativo - Informática Legislativa - Manhã |
Q2326030
Inglês
Texto associado
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it
Text II
Boy cries Wolf
After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence,
many people worry that they will end up on the economic
scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have
doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be
replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence
suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper
Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of
the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks
affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests
that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face
unprecedented upheaval.
Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about
automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early
2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs
by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across
the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers
have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates
of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and
South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of
unemployment.
Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on
jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we
single out white-collar workers. These include people working in
everything from back-office support and financial operations to
copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially
vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at
logical reasoning and creativity.
However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to
employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a
share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost
their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar
share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered.
Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions
supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a
percentage point.
It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI
tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed.
Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will
end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be
efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as
management and working out what others need.
AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using
it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise
which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey
by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More
than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a
positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it
finds.
To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this
analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems
a way off.
From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
Based on Text II, mark the statements below as TRUE (T) or FALSE
(F).
( ) Many believe AI will eventually make jobs redundant.
( ) The conclusion of the text is that the current outlook regarding employment is rather bleak.
( ) The authors prefer to probe forthcoming evidence before issuing unequivocal accounts.
The statements are, respectively,
( ) Many believe AI will eventually make jobs redundant.
( ) The conclusion of the text is that the current outlook regarding employment is rather bleak.
( ) The authors prefer to probe forthcoming evidence before issuing unequivocal accounts.
The statements are, respectively,
Ano: 2023
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
Câmara dos Deputados
Prova:
FGV - 2023 - Câmara dos Deputados - Analista Legislativo - Informática Legislativa - Manhã |
Q2326033
Inglês
Texto associado
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it
Text II
Boy cries Wolf
After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence,
many people worry that they will end up on the economic
scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have
doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be
replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence
suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper
Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of
the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks
affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests
that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face
unprecedented upheaval.
Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about
automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early
2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs
by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across
the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers
have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates
of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and
South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of
unemployment.
Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on
jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we
single out white-collar workers. These include people working in
everything from back-office support and financial operations to
copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially
vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at
logical reasoning and creativity.
However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to
employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a
share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost
their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar
share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered.
Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions
supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a
percentage point.
It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI
tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed.
Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will
end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be
efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as
management and working out what others need.
AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using
it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise
which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey
by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More
than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a
positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it
finds.
To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this
analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems
a way off.
From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
If someone ends up “on the economic scrapheap” (1st paragraph),
this person will feel
Ano: 2023
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
Câmara dos Deputados
Prova:
FGV - 2023 - Câmara dos Deputados - Analista Legislativo - Informática Legislativa - Manhã |
Q2326034
Inglês
Texto associado
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it
Text II
Boy cries Wolf
After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence,
many people worry that they will end up on the economic
scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have
doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be
replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence
suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper
Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of
the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks
affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests
that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face
unprecedented upheaval.
Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about
automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early
2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs
by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across
the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers
have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates
of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and
South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of
unemployment.
Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on
jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we
single out white-collar workers. These include people working in
everything from back-office support and financial operations to
copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially
vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at
logical reasoning and creativity.
However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to
employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a
share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost
their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar
share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered.
Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions
supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a
percentage point.
It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI
tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed.
Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will
end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be
efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as
management and working out what others need.
AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using
it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise
which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey
by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More
than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a
positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it
finds.
To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this
analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems
a way off.
From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
By calling some economists “doom-mongers” in “Few of the
doom-mongers have a good explanation” (2nd paragraph), the
authors
Ano: 2023
Banca:
FGV
Órgão:
Câmara dos Deputados
Prova:
FGV - 2023 - Câmara dos Deputados - Analista Legislativo - Informática Legislativa - Manhã |
Q2326035
Inglês
Texto associado
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it
Text II
Boy cries Wolf
After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence,
many people worry that they will end up on the economic
scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have
doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be
replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence
suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper
Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of
the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks
affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests
that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face
unprecedented upheaval.
Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about
automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early
2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs
by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across
the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers
have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates
of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and
South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of
unemployment.
Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on
jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we
single out white-collar workers. These include people working in
everything from back-office support and financial operations to
copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially
vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at
logical reasoning and creativity.
However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to
employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a
share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost
their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar
share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered.
Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions
supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a
percentage point.
It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI
tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed.
Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will
end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be
efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as
management and working out what others need.
AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using
it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise
which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey
by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More
than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a
positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it
finds.
To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this
analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems
a way off.
From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, when the paper
mentions an “upheaval”, it refers to the possibility of a future