Question are related to Text 03.

Text 03 

“Three little birds sat on my window

And they told me I don't need to worry

Summer came like cinnamon, so sweet

Little girls, double-dutch on the concrete   

Maybe sometimes we got it wrong, but it's all right

The more things seems to change, the more they stay the same  

Ooh, don't you hesitate

Girl, put your records on, tell me your favorite song  

You go ahead, let your hair down

Sapphire and faded jeans 

I hope you get your dreams

Just go ahead, let your hair down 

You're gonna find yourself somewhere, somehow.” 

Put Your Records on, by Corinne Bailey Rae, at

https://lyrics.lyricfind.com/lyrics/corinne-bailey-rae-put-your-records-on 

Question regard Text 02 below.

Text 02

Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT March 8, 2023

By Noam Chomsky, Ian Roberts and Jeffrey Watumull

Dr. Chomsky and Dr. Roberts are professors of linguistics. Dr. Watumull is a director of artificial intelligence at a science and technology company. 

Jorge Luis Borges once wrote that to live in a time of great peril and promise is to experience both tragedy and comedy, with “the imminence of a revelation” in understanding ourselves and the world. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. Optimism because intelligence is the means by which we solve problems. Concern because we fear that the most popular and fashionable strain of A.I. — machine learning — will degrade our science and debase our ethics by incorporating into our technology a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge. 

OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Sydney are marvels of machine learning. Roughly speaking, they take huge amounts of data, search for patterns in it and become increasingly proficient at generating statistically probable outputs — such as seemingly humanlike language and thought. These programs have been hailed as the first glimmers on the horizon of artificial general intelligence — that long-prophesied moment when mechanical minds surpass human brains not only quantitatively in terms of processing speed and memory size but also qualitatively in terms of intellectual insight, artistic creativity and every other distinctively human faculty.

That day may come, but its dawn is not yet breaking, contrary to what can be read in hyperbolic headlines and reckoned by injudicious investments. The Borgesian revelation of understanding has not and will not — and, we submit, cannot — occur if machine learning programs like ChatGPT continue to dominate the field of A.I. However useful these programs may be in some narrow domains (they can be helpful in computer programming, for example, or in suggesting rhymes for light verse), we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that they differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. These differences place significant limitations on what these programs can do, encoding them with ineradicable defects. (…)  

Fragment from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html - accessed on November 23rd, 2023. 

Question regard Text 02 below.

Text 02

Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT March 8, 2023

By Noam Chomsky, Ian Roberts and Jeffrey Watumull

Dr. Chomsky and Dr. Roberts are professors of linguistics. Dr. Watumull is a director of artificial intelligence at a science and technology company. 

Jorge Luis Borges once wrote that to live in a time of great peril and promise is to experience both tragedy and comedy, with “the imminence of a revelation” in understanding ourselves and the world. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. Optimism because intelligence is the means by which we solve problems. Concern because we fear that the most popular and fashionable strain of A.I. — machine learning — will degrade our science and debase our ethics by incorporating into our technology a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge. 

OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Sydney are marvels of machine learning. Roughly speaking, they take huge amounts of data, search for patterns in it and become increasingly proficient at generating statistically probable outputs — such as seemingly humanlike language and thought. These programs have been hailed as the first glimmers on the horizon of artificial general intelligence — that long-prophesied moment when mechanical minds surpass human brains not only quantitatively in terms of processing speed and memory size but also qualitatively in terms of intellectual insight, artistic creativity and every other distinctively human faculty.

That day may come, but its dawn is not yet breaking, contrary to what can be read in hyperbolic headlines and reckoned by injudicious investments. The Borgesian revelation of understanding has not and will not — and, we submit, cannot — occur if machine learning programs like ChatGPT continue to dominate the field of A.I. However useful these programs may be in some narrow domains (they can be helpful in computer programming, for example, or in suggesting rhymes for light verse), we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that they differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. These differences place significant limitations on what these programs can do, encoding them with ineradicable defects. (…)  

Fragment from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html - accessed on November 23rd, 2023. 

Attention: Question refer to Text 01. Only one alternative is correct.

Text 01

English is perhaps the most widely-spoken, widely-taught and widely-researched language in the world. For these reasons, research centred on (varieties of) English1 has been fundamental to the development of sociolinguistics and related disciplines, as with many branches of linguistics and language sciences. From insight into the social stratification of linguistic variables (Labov), to understanding of the way in which language intertwines with social communities and identity (Eckert), via explorations as to how context is embedded in language (Gumperz), studies focusing on English have played a key role in shaping the questions, methods and concepts of sociolinguistics and other disciplines that adopt a social approach to researching language.   

This dynamic shows no signs of abating and recent research has continued this exploration of English as a social practice, shedding light on the reciprocal influence between English and matters relating to gender (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet), sexuality (Ehrlich et al.), political resistance (Reisigl and Wodak), race (Makoni et al.), climate change (Flottum) and all nature of social, sanitary and/or economic crises (Piller et al.), to name but a few key areas of interest. In sum, English – whether as a first language, as a lingua franca (Mauranen and Ranta) or within multi- or plurilingual practices (Forlot) – is deeply intertwined with extremely diverse sociolinguistic configurations. Linguistically speaking, these different social contexts contribute profoundly to shaping all aspects of the genesis, evolution and variation of English (Glain). Seen from another angle, these same English(es) constitute social, cultural, ideological, identity, political, or sometimes even economic, resources (e.g. Heller; Eckert; Trudgill), deployed by speakers in any number of social contexts, to any number of social ends. [...] 

1 In a quest for clarity, “English” is used in place of “(varieties of) English” from this point forward. However, all occurrences of “English” should be taken to include “(varieties of) English”.

From: https://journals.openedition.org/anglophonia/4683 accessed on November 23rd, 2023.