Cambridge IELTS 13Test1Passage3 Reading original translation Artificial artists
The third article of the first set of topics of Cambridge IELTS 13 is about AI artists. There are seven paragraphs in this article, which respectively introduce the achievements of AI in the field of art, their challenges to human beings, the specific development process, people's prejudices, and the interpretation of such prejudices. The following is the translation of each paragraph.
Click to view this IELTS reading Subject specific Answer analysis And what needs to be mastered High-frequency vocabulary ：
Cambridge IELTS 13Test1Passage3 Analysis of Reading Answers Artificial Artists
IELTS real question reading vocabulary Cambridge IELTS 13 Test 1 Passage 3 Can AI carry out artistic creation
Cambridge IELTS 13 Test1 Passage3 Read the original translation
Paragraph 1
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.
"Painting Fools" is one of more and more computer programs with creative talents (at least as their creators say). The classical music created by AI composers intoxicated the audience, even made them mistakenly think it was a masterpiece of some human being. Robot painting works of art once sold for thousands of dollars and were displayed in famous art museums. Some software creates artworks that programmers never imagined.
Paragraph 2
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.’
Humans are the only species that can often complete complex and creative behaviors. If we decompose this process into computer code, where does this place human creativity? "This is a question about the core content of human nature," said Geraint Wiggins, a computer creativity researcher at Smith College, University of London.
Paragraph 3
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.
To some extent, we are all familiar with computer art. The question is, where does the work of artists end, and where does the creativity of computers begin? Think of Aaron, one of the oldest machine artists, whose paintings are displayed in the Tate Museum of Modern Art in London and the Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco. Aaron can pick up the brush alone and paint on the canvas. This may be amazing, but it is still just a tool for programmers to realize their own creative ideas.
Paragraph 4
Simon Colton, the designer of the Painting Fool, is keen to make sure his creation doesn’t attract the same criticism. Unlike earlier ‘artists’ 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?
Simon Colton, the designer of "Painting Fools", is eager to ensure that his work does not attract the same criticism. Unlike early artists such as Aaron, "painting fools" only need few instructions and can put forward their own ideas by searching for materials on the Internet. The software runs its own web search function to browse various pages of social media. It is now beginning to show some imagination, creating pictures from scratch. One of his original works is a series of hazy landscapes depicting trees and the sky. Although some people may say that they look mechanical, Colton believes that this reaction stems from people's double standards for software creation and human created works of art. After all, he said, we should take into account that "painting fools" did not refer to photos when painting landscapes. "If a child paints a new picture from his mind, you will say that it has a certain degree of imagination," he pointed out The same standard should also apply to machines. "Software errors can also cause some unexpected results. Due to technical failures, some" painting fools "works painted chairs in black and white. This gives the painting a strange and strange feeling. Famous human artists such as Ellsworth Kelly are praised for using as little color as possible - so why should computers be different?
Paragraph 5
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.
Researchers like Colton believe that it is not correct to directly compare the creativity of machines with that of humans, because humans have used thousands of years to improve our skills. However, others are obsessed with the prospect that computers may create works as creative and ingenious as our best artists. So far, only one is close to this goal. Composer David Cope invented a program called "Music Intelligence Experiment", called EMI for short. EMI can not only create Cope style music, but also imitate the works of the most respected classical music composers, including Bach, Chopin and Mozart. The audience was moved to tears. EMI even made classical music experts mistakenly believe that what they heard was the real Bach works. However, not everyone is amazed at this. Some people, such as Wiggins, have slammed Cope's work as pseudoscience and accused him of being deliberately vague about the way the software works. At the same time, Douglas Hofstadter of Indiana University believes that the imitations created by EMI are still completely dependent on the creative impulse of the original artist. When listeners discover the truth, they often feel extremely angry with Cope. One music lover even tried to beat him. In the midst of these disputes, Cope destroyed the database critical to EMI.
Paragraph 6
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.
However, why do so many people like music but feel disgusted when they find its way of creation? A study by David Moffat, a computer scientist at the University of Caledonia in Glasgow, provides a clue. He asked professional musicians and non professionals to evaluate six works. Participants were not told in advance whether the music was created by humans or computers, but were asked to guess and then rate each song according to their liking. People who think the creator is a computer usually dislike the music more than those who think the creator is a human. Even among experts. People had expected their analysis to be more objective.
Paragraph 7
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.
Where does this prejudice come from? Paul Bloom of Yale University put forward the following opinion: he believes that part of the fun we get from art comes from the creative process behind it. This can give it an "irresistible nature", Bloom said. At the same time, the experiment conducted by Justin Kruger of New York University shows that if people think it takes more time and effort to create an artwork, they will appreciate it more. Similarly, Colton believes that when people experience art, they will be curious about what the artist was thinking or trying to tell them. Therefore, the reason seems obvious, if it is the art created by computers, this conjecture process has been shortened - there is nothing to explore. But as technology becomes more and more complex, it may be possible to explore deeper connotations in computer art. This is exactly why Colton let "Painting Fools" search social media for inspiration: hope that in this way, it can choose topics that are already meaningful to us.
Case Study: Tourism New Zealand website
Why being born is stimulating and using too
