Questão 47 · Língua Inglesa: Interpretação de textos
Texto associado à questão
Based on the ideas presented in the previous text, judge the items that follow.
Ahead of the upcoming AI Safety Summit in Seoul, leading AI scientists from institutions like the University of Oxford are urging world leaders to act on AI risks. Despite the pledges made at the previous summit in Bletchley Park, the experts argue that progress has been insufficient. According to Dr. Jan Brauner, the current AI landscape is dominated by a relentless pursuit of technological advancement, with safety and ethics as secondary concerns. This expert consensus paper, published in Science magazine, stresses that without a focus on safe development, AI may pose serious risks to society, especially as the potential for rapid, transformative AI capabilities looms within the decade.
The authors, including renowned AI figures such as Geoffrey Hinton and Dawn Song, outline critical priorities for global AI policy. They recommend establishing well-funded, expert oversight institutions and highlight the disproportionate funding gap. In the United States, AI Safety Institute’s budget is just $ 10 million, in stark contrast to the Food and Drug Administration’s $ 6.7 billion. They also advocate for mandatory, rigorous risk assessments and call for enforceable standards on AI safety, urging AI companies to adopt “safety cases” similar to those in other high-stakes fields like aviation. These safety cases would place the responsibility on developers to prove their technologies pose no harm.
Additionally, the paper proposes “mitigation standards” that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones. This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or relaxing based on the technology’s pace. As global leaders prepare for the summit, the experts emphasize that addressing AI risks now is essential for protecting society from potential harm. This marks the first consensus from such a broad coalition of international AI experts, underscoring the urgency for concrete policy commitments rather than vague proposals.
Internet: <ox.ac.uk> (adapted).
The proposed ‘mitigation standards’ (first sentence of the last paragraph) would allow policies to be adjusted based on the current needs and budgets of AI companies.
Julgue o item:
Gabarito: ERRADO
Gabarito definitivo divulgado pela banca Cebraspe (TRF6 2025).
Comentário
Gabarito: ERRADO.
O item afirma que os 'mitigation standards' permitiriam o ajuste das políticas com base nas necessidades e orçamentos das empresas de IA. No entanto, o texto-base estabelece que esses padrões seriam ajustados de acordo com o avanço da tecnologia de IA, e não com as condições financeiras ou necessidades das empresas. O trecho relevante do texto é: "Additionally, the paper proposes 'mitigation standards' that automatically scale according to AI capability milestones. This approach would ensure rapid responses if AI systems advance quickly, with policies automatically tightening or relaxing based on the technology’s pace." Ou seja, a variação das políticas se daria em função do "pace" (ritmo/velocidade) da tecnologia, e não de fatores econômicos das empresas. A afirmação do item contradiz diretamente essa explicação do texto.
Fundamentos: Interpretação textual
Comentário gerado pela Cravei IA a partir do enunciado e do gabarito definitivo divulgado pela banca, e conferido por uma verificação automática. A IA pode errar: o gabarito oficial sempre prevalece.
Fonte: prova Cebraspe TRF6 2025 (Analista Judiciário – Área: Apoio Especializado), questão 47, com o gabarito definitivo da banca. Comentário: Equipe Cravei · como fazemos e revisamos.