"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department", said Wernher von Braun, the pioneer rocket scientist who worked after 1945, with equal enthusiasm, for NASA. Now a rather different mathematician, Hannah Fry, has called for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists and technologists to help them carry constantly in their minds the ethical consequences of their work. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration: if it achieves nothing else, it will help to dispel the idea that technologies like software development are in themselves morally neutral, so that ethics, or morality, can be dealt with by someone else. Those who send the rockets up need to think carefully about where they might come down.

There are three obvious issues with her plan. The first is "Whose ethics? Which rationality?" There is no single, universal code of ethics to which all scientists around the world subscribe and the wars of the 20th century show how quickly many could be recruited to weapons research in the name of defending civilisation. And absolute pacifism has not been a feature of earlier efforts at scientific ethics. The philosopher Karl Popper proposed in 1969 an oath for all students of science; even then, he could, and did, justify some work on nuclear weapons.

The second problem is the extreme difficulty of foreseeing the uses to which pure research can be put. There have been a few occasions in recent times when scientists have drawn back from research until some at least of the ethical consequences of its application have become clearer: the suspension of genetic engineering in the Asflomar conference is the most celebrated. But fundamental research has uses far beyond the imagination of the people who carry it out.No one could blame Alan Turing for YouTube’s role in stirring up extremism.

Beyond this horizon of ignorance appears what might be called a horizon of influence: any one individual can only accomplish a limited amount compared to the forces of states and huge businesses. Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the web, is horrified by some of the ways in which it has developed but he has been powerless to stop them. It’s true that collective action can have effects, but these are limited. A revulsion among the workers at Google has so far stopped the company from cooperating with the US immigration service. It has not stopped its YouTube algorithms from corrupting politics in Brazil. Any effective moral action must come from corporations as a whole, not just some of their workers.

But for all these drawbacks, this is still a worthwhile idea. The choice between individual and collective ethics is not either/or. Both are needed. The dominant ideal of the last decades has been boundless selfishness, both individual and corporate. Whatever helps to put limits on that is not just desirable but essential.

The author begins the article with Wernher von Braun’s words to______.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department", said Wernher von Braun, the pioneer rocket scientist who worked after 1945, with equal enthusiasm, for NASA. Now a rather different mathematician, Hannah Fry, has called for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists and technologists to help them carry constantly in their minds the ethical consequences of their work. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration: if it achieves nothing else, it will help to dispel the idea that technologies like software development are in themselves morally neutral, so that ethics, or morality, can be dealt with by someone else. Those who send the rockets up need to think carefully about where they might come down.

There are three obvious issues with her plan. The first is "Whose ethics? Which rationality?" There is no single, universal code of ethics to which all scientists around the world subscribe and the wars of the 20th century show how quickly many could be recruited to weapons research in the name of defending civilisation. And absolute pacifism has not been a feature of earlier efforts at scientific ethics. The philosopher Karl Popper proposed in 1969 an oath for all students of science; even then, he could, and did, justify some work on nuclear weapons.

The second problem is the extreme difficulty of foreseeing the uses to which pure research can be put. There have been a few occasions in recent times when scientists have drawn back from research until some at least of the ethical consequences of its application have become clearer: the suspension of genetic engineering in the Asflomar conference is the most celebrated. But fundamental research has uses far beyond the imagination of the people who carry it out.No one could blame Alan Turing for YouTube’s role in stirring up extremism.

Beyond this horizon of ignorance appears what might be called a horizon of influence: any one individual can only accomplish a limited amount compared to the forces of states and huge businesses. Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the web, is horrified by some of the ways in which it has developed but he has been powerless to stop them. It’s true that collective action can have effects, but these are limited. A revulsion among the workers at Google has so far stopped the company from cooperating with the US immigration service. It has not stopped its YouTube algorithms from corrupting politics in Brazil. Any effective moral action must come from corporations as a whole, not just some of their workers.

But for all these drawbacks, this is still a worthwhile idea. The choice between individual and collective ethics is not either/or. Both are needed. The dominant ideal of the last decades has been boundless selfishness, both individual and corporate. Whatever helps to put limits on that is not just desirable but essential.

According to the author, what is the role of Hannah Fry’s proposal?

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department", said Wernher von Braun, the pioneer rocket scientist who worked after 1945, with equal enthusiasm, for NASA. Now a rather different mathematician, Hannah Fry, has called for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists and technologists to help them carry constantly in their minds the ethical consequences of their work. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration: if it achieves nothing else, it will help to dispel the idea that technologies like software development are in themselves morally neutral, so that ethics, or morality, can be dealt with by someone else. Those who send the rockets up need to think carefully about where they might come down.

There are three obvious issues with her plan. The first is "Whose ethics? Which rationality?" There is no single, universal code of ethics to which all scientists around the world subscribe and the wars of the 20th century show how quickly many could be recruited to weapons research in the name of defending civilisation. And absolute pacifism has not been a feature of earlier efforts at scientific ethics. The philosopher Karl Popper proposed in 1969 an oath for all students of science; even then, he could, and did, justify some work on nuclear weapons.

The second problem is the extreme difficulty of foreseeing the uses to which pure research can be put. There have been a few occasions in recent times when scientists have drawn back from research until some at least of the ethical consequences of its application have become clearer: the suspension of genetic engineering in the Asflomar conference is the most celebrated. But fundamental research has uses far beyond the imagination of the people who carry it out.No one could blame Alan Turing for YouTube’s role in stirring up extremism.

Beyond this horizon of ignorance appears what might be called a horizon of influence: any one individual can only accomplish a limited amount compared to the forces of states and huge businesses. Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the web, is horrified by some of the ways in which it has developed but he has been powerless to stop them. It’s true that collective action can have effects, but these are limited. A revulsion among the workers at Google has so far stopped the company from cooperating with the US immigration service. It has not stopped its YouTube algorithms from corrupting politics in Brazil. Any effective moral action must come from corporations as a whole, not just some of their workers.

But for all these drawbacks, this is still a worthwhile idea. The choice between individual and collective ethics is not either/or. Both are needed. The dominant ideal of the last decades has been boundless selfishness, both individual and corporate. Whatever helps to put limits on that is not just desirable but essential.

It can be learned from Paragraph 2 that______.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department", said Wernher von Braun, the pioneer rocket scientist who worked after 1945, with equal enthusiasm, for NASA. Now a rather different mathematician, Hannah Fry, has called for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists and technologists to help them carry constantly in their minds the ethical consequences of their work. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration: if it achieves nothing else, it will help to dispel the idea that technologies like software development are in themselves morally neutral, so that ethics, or morality, can be dealt with by someone else. Those who send the rockets up need to think carefully about where they might come down.

There are three obvious issues with her plan. The first is "Whose ethics? Which rationality?" There is no single, universal code of ethics to which all scientists around the world subscribe and the wars of the 20th century show how quickly many could be recruited to weapons research in the name of defending civilisation. And absolute pacifism has not been a feature of earlier efforts at scientific ethics. The philosopher Karl Popper proposed in 1969 an oath for all students of science; even then, he could, and did, justify some work on nuclear weapons.

The second problem is the extreme difficulty of foreseeing the uses to which pure research can be put. There have been a few occasions in recent times when scientists have drawn back from research until some at least of the ethical consequences of its application have become clearer: the suspension of genetic engineering in the Asflomar conference is the most celebrated. But fundamental research has uses far beyond the imagination of the people who carry it out.No one could blame Alan Turing for YouTube’s role in stirring up extremism.

Beyond this horizon of ignorance appears what might be called a horizon of influence: any one individual can only accomplish a limited amount compared to the forces of states and huge businesses. Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the web, is horrified by some of the ways in which it has developed but he has been powerless to stop them. It’s true that collective action can have effects, but these are limited. A revulsion among the workers at Google has so far stopped the company from cooperating with the US immigration service. It has not stopped its YouTube algorithms from corrupting politics in Brazil. Any effective moral action must come from corporations as a whole, not just some of their workers.

But for all these drawbacks, this is still a worthwhile idea. The choice between individual and collective ethics is not either/or. Both are needed. The dominant ideal of the last decades has been boundless selfishness, both individual and corporate. Whatever helps to put limits on that is not just desirable but essential.

The Asilomar conference is mentioned in the text to indicate______.

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department", said Wernher von Braun, the pioneer rocket scientist who worked after 1945, with equal enthusiasm, for NASA. Now a rather different mathematician, Hannah Fry, has called for a Hippocratic Oath for scientists and technologists to help them carry constantly in their minds the ethical consequences of their work. This is a proposal that deserves serious consideration: if it achieves nothing else, it will help to dispel the idea that technologies like software development are in themselves morally neutral, so that ethics, or morality, can be dealt with by someone else. Those who send the rockets up need to think carefully about where they might come down.

There are three obvious issues with her plan. The first is "Whose ethics? Which rationality?" There is no single, universal code of ethics to which all scientists around the world subscribe and the wars of the 20th century show how quickly many could be recruited to weapons research in the name of defending civilisation. And absolute pacifism has not been a feature of earlier efforts at scientific ethics. The philosopher Karl Popper proposed in 1969 an oath for all students of science; even then, he could, and did, justify some work on nuclear weapons.

The second problem is the extreme difficulty of foreseeing the uses to which pure research can be put. There have been a few occasions in recent times when scientists have drawn back from research until some at least of the ethical consequences of its application have become clearer: the suspension of genetic engineering in the Asflomar conference is the most celebrated. But fundamental research has uses far beyond the imagination of the people who carry it out.No one could blame Alan Turing for YouTube’s role in stirring up extremism.

Beyond this horizon of ignorance appears what might be called a horizon of influence: any one individual can only accomplish a limited amount compared to the forces of states and huge businesses. Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the web, is horrified by some of the ways in which it has developed but he has been powerless to stop them. It’s true that collective action can have effects, but these are limited. A revulsion among the workers at Google has so far stopped the company from cooperating with the US immigration service. It has not stopped its YouTube algorithms from corrupting politics in Brazil. Any effective moral action must come from corporations as a whole, not just some of their workers.

But for all these drawbacks, this is still a worthwhile idea. The choice between individual and collective ethics is not either/or. Both are needed. The dominant ideal of the last decades has been boundless selfishness, both individual and corporate. Whatever helps to put limits on that is not just desirable but essential.

The author discusses the subject of ethics for scientist by______.

Will a robot snatch away your job? Or will you learn to love intelligent machines as co-workers? In today’s quickly evolving workplace a little of either may be true.

Robots were once seen as workers that would free humans from the "three D" jobs：dull,dirty,and dangerous. Unskilled laborers would have their jobs handed to machines that never needed to take a day off, a vacation, or even a coffee break.

That’s still a concern. But humans have also proved resilient, possessing a wide array of fine motor skills that have proved difficult to reproduce in machines. While robots might operate using one sensor, perhaps a kind of vision, humans can tap five senses to assess a situation, as well as a complex set of memories and experiences. When robots can catch up is anyone’s guess.

Still, more and more robots are scurrying around places like gigantic Amazon distribution centers, where they deliver packages to channels matched to the right delivery ZIP code. Their paths as they roll about the warehouse floor are based on complex algorithms that maximize efficiency. But for now, humans are still needed to pack the actual boxes, which might contain several items of different sizes, shapes, weights, and fragility. That’s a packing choice that still stumps a robot, but is easily handled by a human.

As artificial intelligence advances, robots will move into higher-skilled jobs that seem especially human. This spring, for example, minor league baseball is experimenting with a "robo-umpire" called TrackMan that calls balls and strikes behind home plate. No more fans yelling at a human ump "Get a pair of glasses!" Journalists have fancied themselves pretty safe from robo-job stealing. But RADAR, a robot news writer in Britain, researches and writes stories based on templates created by humans, producing about 8,000 local news stories a month. Humans are still needed to double-check the work, just as editors do with human journalists today.

Observers worry that the historically low 3.6% jobless rate in the United States is temporarily masking this robot revolution shocking the workplace. In April, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated 14% of the jobs in its 36 member nations are at "high risk" of being eliminated by automation, while another 32% will undergo major changes in how they are done. Millions of workers young and old will need to learn new skills to keep their jobs or qualify for new ones. How to prepare to work alongside robots and other manifestations of artificial intelligence is a challenge that individuals, educators, employers, and governments are going to be facing at an ever-quickening pace.

What does the author mean by saying "That’s still a concern" (Line 1, Paragraph 3) ?

Will a robot snatch away your job? Or will you learn to love intelligent machines as co-workers? In today’s quickly evolving workplace a little of either may be true.

Robots were once seen as workers that would free humans from the "three D" jobs：dull,dirty,and dangerous. Unskilled laborers would have their jobs handed to machines that never needed to take a day off, a vacation, or even a coffee break.

That’s still a concern. But humans have also proved resilient, possessing a wide array of fine motor skills that have proved difficult to reproduce in machines. While robots might operate using one sensor, perhaps a kind of vision, humans can tap five senses to assess a situation, as well as a complex set of memories and experiences. When robots can catch up is anyone’s guess.

Still, more and more robots are scurrying around places like gigantic Amazon distribution centers, where they deliver packages to channels matched to the right delivery ZIP code. Their paths as they roll about the warehouse floor are based on complex algorithms that maximize efficiency. But for now, humans are still needed to pack the actual boxes, which might contain several items of different sizes, shapes, weights, and fragility. That’s a packing choice that still stumps a robot, but is easily handled by a human.

As artificial intelligence advances, robots will move into higher-skilled jobs that seem especially human. This spring, for example, minor league baseball is experimenting with a "robo-umpire" called TrackMan that calls balls and strikes behind home plate. No more fans yelling at a human ump "Get a pair of glasses!" Journalists have fancied themselves pretty safe from robo-job stealing. But RADAR, a robot news writer in Britain, researches and writes stories based on templates created by humans, producing about 8,000 local news stories a month. Humans are still needed to double-check the work, just as editors do with human journalists today.

Observers worry that the historically low 3.6% jobless rate in the United States is temporarily masking this robot revolution shocking the workplace. In April, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated 14% of the jobs in its 36 member nations are at "high risk" of being eliminated by automation, while another 32% will undergo major changes in how they are done. Millions of workers young and old will need to learn new skills to keep their jobs or qualify for new ones. How to prepare to work alongside robots and other manifestations of artificial intelligence is a challenge that individuals, educators, employers, and governments are going to be facing at an ever-quickening pace.

What can we learn from Paragraph 4?

Will a robot snatch away your job? Or will you learn to love intelligent machines as co-workers? In today’s quickly evolving workplace a little of either may be true.

Robots were once seen as workers that would free humans from the "three D" jobs：dull,dirty,and dangerous. Unskilled laborers would have their jobs handed to machines that never needed to take a day off, a vacation, or even a coffee break.

That’s still a concern. But humans have also proved resilient, possessing a wide array of fine motor skills that have proved difficult to reproduce in machines. While robots might operate using one sensor, perhaps a kind of vision, humans can tap five senses to assess a situation, as well as a complex set of memories and experiences. When robots can catch up is anyone’s guess.

Still, more and more robots are scurrying around places like gigantic Amazon distribution centers, where they deliver packages to channels matched to the right delivery ZIP code. Their paths as they roll about the warehouse floor are based on complex algorithms that maximize efficiency. But for now, humans are still needed to pack the actual boxes, which might contain several items of different sizes, shapes, weights, and fragility. That’s a packing choice that still stumps a robot, but is easily handled by a human.

As artificial intelligence advances, robots will move into higher-skilled jobs that seem especially human. This spring, for example, minor league baseball is experimenting with a "robo-umpire" called TrackMan that calls balls and strikes behind home plate. No more fans yelling at a human ump "Get a pair of glasses!" Journalists have fancied themselves pretty safe from robo-job stealing. But RADAR, a robot news writer in Britain, researches and writes stories based on templates created by humans, producing about 8,000 local news stories a month. Humans are still needed to double-check the work, just as editors do with human journalists today.

Observers worry that the historically low 3.6% jobless rate in the United States is temporarily masking this robot revolution shocking the workplace. In April, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated 14% of the jobs in its 36 member nations are at "high risk" of being eliminated by automation, while another 32% will undergo major changes in how they are done. Millions of workers young and old will need to learn new skills to keep their jobs or qualify for new ones. How to prepare to work alongside robots and other manifestations of artificial intelligence is a challenge that individuals, educators, employers, and governments are going to be facing at an ever-quickening pace.

The author quotes the example of TrackMan and RADAR to show that______.

Will a robot snatch away your job? Or will you learn to love intelligent machines as co-workers? In today’s quickly evolving workplace a little of either may be true.

Robots were once seen as workers that would free humans from the "three D" jobs：dull,dirty,and dangerous. Unskilled laborers would have their jobs handed to machines that never needed to take a day off, a vacation, or even a coffee break.

That’s still a concern. But humans have also proved resilient, possessing a wide array of fine motor skills that have proved difficult to reproduce in machines. While robots might operate using one sensor, perhaps a kind of vision, humans can tap five senses to assess a situation, as well as a complex set of memories and experiences. When robots can catch up is anyone’s guess.

Still, more and more robots are scurrying around places like gigantic Amazon distribution centers, where they deliver packages to channels matched to the right delivery ZIP code. Their paths as they roll about the warehouse floor are based on complex algorithms that maximize efficiency. But for now, humans are still needed to pack the actual boxes, which might contain several items of different sizes, shapes, weights, and fragility. That’s a packing choice that still stumps a robot, but is easily handled by a human.

As artificial intelligence advances, robots will move into higher-skilled jobs that seem especially human. This spring, for example, minor league baseball is experimenting with a "robo-umpire" called TrackMan that calls balls and strikes behind home plate. No more fans yelling at a human ump "Get a pair of glasses!" Journalists have fancied themselves pretty safe from robo-job stealing. But RADAR, a robot news writer in Britain, researches and writes stories based on templates created by humans, producing about 8,000 local news stories a month. Humans are still needed to double-check the work, just as editors do with human journalists today.

Observers worry that the historically low 3.6% jobless rate in the United States is temporarily masking this robot revolution shocking the workplace. In April, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated 14% of the jobs in its 36 member nations are at "high risk" of being eliminated by automation, while another 32% will undergo major changes in how they are done. Millions of workers young and old will need to learn new skills to keep their jobs or qualify for new ones. How to prepare to work alongside robots and other manifestations of artificial intelligence is a challenge that individuals, educators, employers, and governments are going to be facing at an ever-quickening pace.

The author’s attitude towards working together with robots is______.

Will a robot snatch away your job? Or will you learn to love intelligent machines as co-workers? In today’s quickly evolving workplace a little of either may be true.

Robots were once seen as workers that would free humans from the "three D" jobs：dull,dirty,and dangerous. Unskilled laborers would have their jobs handed to machines that never needed to take a day off, a vacation, or even a coffee break.

That’s still a concern. But humans have also proved resilient, possessing a wide array of fine motor skills that have proved difficult to reproduce in machines. While robots might operate using one sensor, perhaps a kind of vision, humans can tap five senses to assess a situation, as well as a complex set of memories and experiences. When robots can catch up is anyone’s guess.

Still, more and more robots are scurrying around places like gigantic Amazon distribution centers, where they deliver packages to channels matched to the right delivery ZIP code. Their paths as they roll about the warehouse floor are based on complex algorithms that maximize efficiency. But for now, humans are still needed to pack the actual boxes, which might contain several items of different sizes, shapes, weights, and fragility. That’s a packing choice that still stumps a robot, but is easily handled by a human.

As artificial intelligence advances, robots will move into higher-skilled jobs that seem especially human. This spring, for example, minor league baseball is experimenting with a "robo-umpire" called TrackMan that calls balls and strikes behind home plate. No more fans yelling at a human ump "Get a pair of glasses!" Journalists have fancied themselves pretty safe from robo-job stealing. But RADAR, a robot news writer in Britain, researches and writes stories based on templates created by humans, producing about 8,000 local news stories a month. Humans are still needed to double-check the work, just as editors do with human journalists today.

Observers worry that the historically low 3.6% jobless rate in the United States is temporarily masking this robot revolution shocking the workplace. In April, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimated 14% of the jobs in its 36 member nations are at "high risk" of being eliminated by automation, while another 32% will undergo major changes in how they are done. Millions of workers young and old will need to learn new skills to keep their jobs or qualify for new ones. How to prepare to work alongside robots and other manifestations of artificial intelligence is a challenge that individuals, educators, employers, and governments are going to be facing at an ever-quickening pace.

Which of the following is the text mainly about?

State and local authorities from New Hampshire to San Francisco have begun banning the use of facial-recognition technology. Their suspicion is well founded: these algorithms make lots of mistakes, particularly when it comes to identifying women and people of color. Even if the tech gets more accurate, facial recognition will unleash an invasion of privacy that could make anonymity impossible. Unfortunately, bans on its use by local governments have done little to curb adoption by businesses from start-ups to large corporations. That expanding reach is why this technology requires federal regulations—and it needs them now.

Automated face-recognition programs do have advantages, such as their ability to turn a person’s unique appearance into a biometric ID that can let phone users unlock their devices with a glance and allow airport security to quickly confirm travelers’ identities.To train such systems, researchers feed a variety of photographs to a machine-learning algorithm, which learns the features that are most salient to matching an image with an identity. The more data they amass, the more reliable these programs become.

Too often, though, the algorithms are deployed prematurely. In London, for example,police have begun using artificial-intelligence systems to scan surveillance footage in an attempt to pick out wanted criminals as they walk by—despite an independent review that found this system labeled suspects accurately only 19 percent of the time. An inaccurate system could falsely accuse innocent citizens of being miscreants, earmarking law-abiding people for tracking, harassment or arrest. This becomes a civil-rights issue because the algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color.

Even if someone releases improved facial-recognition software capable of high accuracy across every demographic, this technology will still be a threat. Because algorithms can scan video footage much more quickly than humans can, facial recognition allows for constant surveillance of a population.

The government needs to protect all its citizens against these kinds of measures. But existing bans on the technology create an inconsistent patchwork of regulations: some regions have no restrictions on facial recognition, others ban police from applying it, and still others prevent any government agencies or employees from using it.

Federal regulations are clearly needed. They should require the hundreds of existing facial-recognition programs, many created by private companies, to undergo independent review by a government task force. The tech must meet a high standard of accuracy and demonstrate fairness across all demographic groups, and even if it meets those criteria,humans, not algorithms, should check a program’s output before taking action on its recommendations. Facial recognition must also be included in broader privacy regulations that limit surveillance of the general population. Technologies that threaten the right to privacy must be controlled.

Facial-recognition technology is in urgent need of federal regulations because______.

State and local authorities from New Hampshire to San Francisco have begun banning the use of facial-recognition technology. Their suspicion is well founded: these algorithms make lots of mistakes, particularly when it comes to identifying women and people of color. Even if the tech gets more accurate, facial recognition will unleash an invasion of privacy that could make anonymity impossible. Unfortunately, bans on its use by local governments have done little to curb adoption by businesses from start-ups to large corporations. That expanding reach is why this technology requires federal regulations—and it needs them now.

Automated face-recognition programs do have advantages, such as their ability to turn a person’s unique appearance into a biometric ID that can let phone users unlock their devices with a glance and allow airport security to quickly confirm travelers’ identities.To train such systems, researchers feed a variety of photographs to a machine-learning algorithm, which learns the features that are most salient to matching an image with an identity. The more data they amass, the more reliable these programs become.

Too often, though, the algorithms are deployed prematurely. In London, for example,police have begun using artificial-intelligence systems to scan surveillance footage in an attempt to pick out wanted criminals as they walk by—despite an independent review that found this system labeled suspects accurately only 19 percent of the time. An inaccurate system could falsely accuse innocent citizens of being miscreants, earmarking law-abiding people for tracking, harassment or arrest. This becomes a civil-rights issue because the algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color.

Even if someone releases improved facial-recognition software capable of high accuracy across every demographic, this technology will still be a threat. Because algorithms can scan video footage much more quickly than humans can, facial recognition allows for constant surveillance of a population.

The government needs to protect all its citizens against these kinds of measures. But existing bans on the technology create an inconsistent patchwork of regulations: some regions have no restrictions on facial recognition, others ban police from applying it, and still others prevent any government agencies or employees from using it.

Federal regulations are clearly needed. They should require the hundreds of existing facial-recognition programs, many created by private companies, to undergo independent review by a government task force. The tech must meet a high standard of accuracy and demonstrate fairness across all demographic groups, and even if it meets those criteria,humans, not algorithms, should check a program’s output before taking action on its recommendations. Facial recognition must also be included in broader privacy regulations that limit surveillance of the general population. Technologies that threaten the right to privacy must be controlled.

The word "salient" (Para.2) is closest in meaning to______.

State and local authorities from New Hampshire to San Francisco have begun banning the use of facial-recognition technology. Their suspicion is well founded: these algorithms make lots of mistakes, particularly when it comes to identifying women and people of color. Even if the tech gets more accurate, facial recognition will unleash an invasion of privacy that could make anonymity impossible. Unfortunately, bans on its use by local governments have done little to curb adoption by businesses from start-ups to large corporations. That expanding reach is why this technology requires federal regulations—and it needs them now.

Automated face-recognition programs do have advantages, such as their ability to turn a person’s unique appearance into a biometric ID that can let phone users unlock their devices with a glance and allow airport security to quickly confirm travelers’ identities.To train such systems, researchers feed a variety of photographs to a machine-learning algorithm, which learns the features that are most salient to matching an image with an identity. The more data they amass, the more reliable these programs become.

Too often, though, the algorithms are deployed prematurely. In London, for example,police have begun using artificial-intelligence systems to scan surveillance footage in an attempt to pick out wanted criminals as they walk by—despite an independent review that found this system labeled suspects accurately only 19 percent of the time. An inaccurate system could falsely accuse innocent citizens of being miscreants, earmarking law-abiding people for tracking, harassment or arrest. This becomes a civil-rights issue because the algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color.

Even if someone releases improved facial-recognition software capable of high accuracy across every demographic, this technology will still be a threat. Because algorithms can scan video footage much more quickly than humans can, facial recognition allows for constant surveillance of a population.

The government needs to protect all its citizens against these kinds of measures. But existing bans on the technology create an inconsistent patchwork of regulations: some regions have no restrictions on facial recognition, others ban police from applying it, and still others prevent any government agencies or employees from using it.

Federal regulations are clearly needed. They should require the hundreds of existing facial-recognition programs, many created by private companies, to undergo independent review by a government task force. The tech must meet a high standard of accuracy and demonstrate fairness across all demographic groups, and even if it meets those criteria,humans, not algorithms, should check a program’s output before taking action on its recommendations. Facial recognition must also be included in broader privacy regulations that limit surveillance of the general population. Technologies that threaten the right to privacy must be controlled.

It can be learned from Paragraph 3 that an inaccurate system______.

State and local authorities from New Hampshire to San Francisco have begun banning the use of facial-recognition technology. Their suspicion is well founded: these algorithms make lots of mistakes, particularly when it comes to identifying women and people of color. Even if the tech gets more accurate, facial recognition will unleash an invasion of privacy that could make anonymity impossible. Unfortunately, bans on its use by local governments have done little to curb adoption by businesses from start-ups to large corporations. That expanding reach is why this technology requires federal regulations—and it needs them now.

Automated face-recognition programs do have advantages, such as their ability to turn a person’s unique appearance into a biometric ID that can let phone users unlock their devices with a glance and allow airport security to quickly confirm travelers’ identities.To train such systems, researchers feed a variety of photographs to a machine-learning algorithm, which learns the features that are most salient to matching an image with an identity. The more data they amass, the more reliable these programs become.

Too often, though, the algorithms are deployed prematurely. In London, for example,police have begun using artificial-intelligence systems to scan surveillance footage in an attempt to pick out wanted criminals as they walk by—despite an independent review that found this system labeled suspects accurately only 19 percent of the time. An inaccurate system could falsely accuse innocent citizens of being miscreants, earmarking law-abiding people for tracking, harassment or arrest. This becomes a civil-rights issue because the algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color.

Even if someone releases improved facial-recognition software capable of high accuracy across every demographic, this technology will still be a threat. Because algorithms can scan video footage much more quickly than humans can, facial recognition allows for constant surveillance of a population.

The government needs to protect all its citizens against these kinds of measures. But existing bans on the technology create an inconsistent patchwork of regulations: some regions have no restrictions on facial recognition, others ban police from applying it, and still others prevent any government agencies or employees from using it.

Federal regulations are clearly needed. They should require the hundreds of existing facial-recognition programs, many created by private companies, to undergo independent review by a government task force. The tech must meet a high standard of accuracy and demonstrate fairness across all demographic groups, and even if it meets those criteria,humans, not algorithms, should check a program’s output before taking action on its recommendations. Facial recognition must also be included in broader privacy regulations that limit surveillance of the general population. Technologies that threaten the right to privacy must be controlled.

The existing prohibits on the technology leads to______.

State and local authorities from New Hampshire to San Francisco have begun banning the use of facial-recognition technology. Their suspicion is well founded: these algorithms make lots of mistakes, particularly when it comes to identifying women and people of color. Even if the tech gets more accurate, facial recognition will unleash an invasion of privacy that could make anonymity impossible. Unfortunately, bans on its use by local governments have done little to curb adoption by businesses from start-ups to large corporations. That expanding reach is why this technology requires federal regulations—and it needs them now.

Automated face-recognition programs do have advantages, such as their ability to turn a person’s unique appearance into a biometric ID that can let phone users unlock their devices with a glance and allow airport security to quickly confirm travelers’ identities.To train such systems, researchers feed a variety of photographs to a machine-learning algorithm, which learns the features that are most salient to matching an image with an identity. The more data they amass, the more reliable these programs become.

Too often, though, the algorithms are deployed prematurely. In London, for example,police have begun using artificial-intelligence systems to scan surveillance footage in an attempt to pick out wanted criminals as they walk by—despite an independent review that found this system labeled suspects accurately only 19 percent of the time. An inaccurate system could falsely accuse innocent citizens of being miscreants, earmarking law-abiding people for tracking, harassment or arrest. This becomes a civil-rights issue because the algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color.

Even if someone releases improved facial-recognition software capable of high accuracy across every demographic, this technology will still be a threat. Because algorithms can scan video footage much more quickly than humans can, facial recognition allows for constant surveillance of a population.

The government needs to protect all its citizens against these kinds of measures. But existing bans on the technology create an inconsistent patchwork of regulations: some regions have no restrictions on facial recognition, others ban police from applying it, and still others prevent any government agencies or employees from using it.

Federal regulations are clearly needed. They should require the hundreds of existing facial-recognition programs, many created by private companies, to undergo independent review by a government task force. The tech must meet a high standard of accuracy and demonstrate fairness across all demographic groups, and even if it meets those criteria,humans, not algorithms, should check a program’s output before taking action on its recommendations. Facial recognition must also be included in broader privacy regulations that limit surveillance of the general population. Technologies that threaten the right to privacy must be controlled.

According to the last paragraph, the government is supposed to______.

Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, put a plan to make higher education at public universities free at the centre of his upstart campaign for the presidency in 2015. The idea seemed radical, even gimmicky. Now some democrats oppose the notion, for example Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, and their arguments still pack a punch. Why indeed should taxpayers’ money be spent on the children of the rich rather than more generous financial aid for the poor?

Across much of the rich world, a public-university education is free or nearly free, apart from the cost of books and living expenses. But those in America and Britain pay tuition fees which are high and growing higher. Places like America and Britain pass some of this increase on to students in the form of higher fees, with the understanding that poorer students will receive financial aid while richer ones will bear the full tuition bill.

To many politicians in these places, this seems just. Unlike primary or secondary education, university is a minority pursuit in most advanced economies. Only about 45% of adults aged 25 to 34 have some post-secondary education. Those people tend to come from richer families. A universal programme that mostly benefits a well-off not-quite-half of the country would seem a strange aspiration for egalitarian-minded politicians. Better to target aid at those from poorer families.

However, supporters of free university marshal a number of practical arguments. University attendees are more likely to come from wealthier families precisely because university is not free. Several analyses of the introduction of tuition fees in Britain found a negative effect on university attendance. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that an increase of ₤1,000 ($1,243) in tuition fees is associated with a decline of 3.9 percentage points in the rate at which recent school-leavers choose to go on to university. Work by Thomas Kane of Harvard University found a response of similar magnitude in America. And research by Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan and Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University concludes that both attendance and completion rates are higher when education is more affordable.

But the most powerful arguments for free university are about values rather than economic efficiency. There are broad social benefits to a well-educated citizenry, because new ideas allow society as a whole to prosper. Amid constant technological change, a standing offer of free higher education may represent an important component of the social safety-net. Universality reinforces the idea that free education is not a makeshift form of redistribution, but part of a system of collective insurance forming an egalitarian society.

By citing Pete Buttigieg, the author intends to show______.

Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, put a plan to make higher education at public universities free at the centre of his upstart campaign for the presidency in 2015. The idea seemed radical, even gimmicky. Now some democrats oppose the notion, for example Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, and their arguments still pack a punch. Why indeed should taxpayers’ money be spent on the children of the rich rather than more generous financial aid for the poor?

Across much of the rich world, a public-university education is free or nearly free, apart from the cost of books and living expenses. But those in America and Britain pay tuition fees which are high and growing higher. Places like America and Britain pass some of this increase on to students in the form of higher fees, with the understanding that poorer students will receive financial aid while richer ones will bear the full tuition bill.

To many politicians in these places, this seems just. Unlike primary or secondary education, university is a minority pursuit in most advanced economies. Only about 45% of adults aged 25 to 34 have some post-secondary education. Those people tend to come from richer families. A universal programme that mostly benefits a well-off not-quite-half of the country would seem a strange aspiration for egalitarian-minded politicians. Better to target aid at those from poorer families.

However, supporters of free university marshal a number of practical arguments. University attendees are more likely to come from wealthier families precisely because university is not free. Several analyses of the introduction of tuition fees in Britain found a negative effect on university attendance. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that an increase of ₤1,000 ($1,243) in tuition fees is associated with a decline of 3.9 percentage points in the rate at which recent school-leavers choose to go on to university. Work by Thomas Kane of Harvard University found a response of similar magnitude in America. And research by Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan and Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University concludes that both attendance and completion rates are higher when education is more affordable.

But the most powerful arguments for free university are about values rather than economic efficiency. There are broad social benefits to a well-educated citizenry, because new ideas allow society as a whole to prosper. Amid constant technological change, a standing offer of free higher education may represent an important component of the social safety-net. Universality reinforces the idea that free education is not a makeshift form of redistribution, but part of a system of collective insurance forming an egalitarian society.

Egalitarian-minded politicians believed a universal programme should______.

Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, put a plan to make higher education at public universities free at the centre of his upstart campaign for the presidency in 2015. The idea seemed radical, even gimmicky. Now some democrats oppose the notion, for example Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, and their arguments still pack a punch. Why indeed should taxpayers’ money be spent on the children of the rich rather than more generous financial aid for the poor?

Across much of the rich world, a public-university education is free or nearly free, apart from the cost of books and living expenses. But those in America and Britain pay tuition fees which are high and growing higher. Places like America and Britain pass some of this increase on to students in the form of higher fees, with the understanding that poorer students will receive financial aid while richer ones will bear the full tuition bill.

To many politicians in these places, this seems just. Unlike primary or secondary education, university is a minority pursuit in most advanced economies. Only about 45% of adults aged 25 to 34 have some post-secondary education. Those people tend to come from richer families. A universal programme that mostly benefits a well-off not-quite-half of the country would seem a strange aspiration for egalitarian-minded politicians. Better to target aid at those from poorer families.

However, supporters of free university marshal a number of practical arguments. University attendees are more likely to come from wealthier families precisely because university is not free. Several analyses of the introduction of tuition fees in Britain found a negative effect on university attendance. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that an increase of ₤1,000 ($1,243) in tuition fees is associated with a decline of 3.9 percentage points in the rate at which recent school-leavers choose to go on to university. Work by Thomas Kane of Harvard University found a response of similar magnitude in America. And research by Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan and Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University concludes that both attendance and completion rates are higher when education is more affordable.

But the most powerful arguments for free university are about values rather than economic efficiency. There are broad social benefits to a well-educated citizenry, because new ideas allow society as a whole to prosper. Amid constant technological change, a standing offer of free higher education may represent an important component of the social safety-net. Universality reinforces the idea that free education is not a makeshift form of redistribution, but part of a system of collective insurance forming an egalitarian society.

Which of the following can be inferred from Paragraph 4?

Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, put a plan to make higher education at public universities free at the centre of his upstart campaign for the presidency in 2015. The idea seemed radical, even gimmicky. Now some democrats oppose the notion, for example Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, and their arguments still pack a punch. Why indeed should taxpayers’ money be spent on the children of the rich rather than more generous financial aid for the poor?

Across much of the rich world, a public-university education is free or nearly free, apart from the cost of books and living expenses. But those in America and Britain pay tuition fees which are high and growing higher. Places like America and Britain pass some of this increase on to students in the form of higher fees, with the understanding that poorer students will receive financial aid while richer ones will bear the full tuition bill.

To many politicians in these places, this seems just. Unlike primary or secondary education, university is a minority pursuit in most advanced economies. Only about 45% of adults aged 25 to 34 have some post-secondary education. Those people tend to come from richer families. A universal programme that mostly benefits a well-off not-quite-half of the country would seem a strange aspiration for egalitarian-minded politicians. Better to target aid at those from poorer families.

However, supporters of free university marshal a number of practical arguments. University attendees are more likely to come from wealthier families precisely because university is not free. Several analyses of the introduction of tuition fees in Britain found a negative effect on university attendance. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that an increase of ₤1,000 ($1,243) in tuition fees is associated with a decline of 3.9 percentage points in the rate at which recent school-leavers choose to go on to university. Work by Thomas Kane of Harvard University found a response of similar magnitude in America. And research by Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan and Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University concludes that both attendance and completion rates are higher when education is more affordable.

But the most powerful arguments for free university are about values rather than economic efficiency. There are broad social benefits to a well-educated citizenry, because new ideas allow society as a whole to prosper. Amid constant technological change, a standing offer of free higher education may represent an important component of the social safety-net. Universality reinforces the idea that free education is not a makeshift form of redistribution, but part of a system of collective insurance forming an egalitarian society.

In Paragraph 5, the author’s attitude towards free university is______.

Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, put a plan to make higher education at public universities free at the centre of his upstart campaign for the presidency in 2015. The idea seemed radical, even gimmicky. Now some democrats oppose the notion, for example Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, and their arguments still pack a punch. Why indeed should taxpayers’ money be spent on the children of the rich rather than more generous financial aid for the poor?

Across much of the rich world, a public-university education is free or nearly free, apart from the cost of books and living expenses. But those in America and Britain pay tuition fees which are high and growing higher. Places like America and Britain pass some of this increase on to students in the form of higher fees, with the understanding that poorer students will receive financial aid while richer ones will bear the full tuition bill.

To many politicians in these places, this seems just. Unlike primary or secondary education, university is a minority pursuit in most advanced economies. Only about 45% of adults aged 25 to 34 have some post-secondary education. Those people tend to come from richer families. A universal programme that mostly benefits a well-off not-quite-half of the country would seem a strange aspiration for egalitarian-minded politicians. Better to target aid at those from poorer families.

However, supporters of free university marshal a number of practical arguments. University attendees are more likely to come from wealthier families precisely because university is not free. Several analyses of the introduction of tuition fees in Britain found a negative effect on university attendance. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that an increase of ₤1,000 ($1,243) in tuition fees is associated with a decline of 3.9 percentage points in the rate at which recent school-leavers choose to go on to university. Work by Thomas Kane of Harvard University found a response of similar magnitude in America. And research by Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan and Judith Scott-Clayton of Columbia University concludes that both attendance and completion rates are higher when education is more affordable.

But the most powerful arguments for free university are about values rather than economic efficiency. There are broad social benefits to a well-educated citizenry, because new ideas allow society as a whole to prosper. Amid constant technological change, a standing offer of free higher education may represent an important component of the social safety-net. Universality reinforces the idea that free education is not a makeshift form of redistribution, but part of a system of collective insurance forming an egalitarian society.

Which of the following would be the best title for the text?