Question at position 12 In the future, it might not be possible to control the power of AGI.BothEricAlison

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The prompt presents a question that references a future concern about controlling the power of AGI and provides three answer options to choose from.
Option 1: "Both". Interpreting this as saying that both of the named individuals (Eric and Alison) are correct in identifying the truth of the statement, we would need to assess whether each person independently supports the claim. Since the prompt does not provide any distinguishing reasons attributed to Alison or Eric within the question text, this option relies on an implicit claim about two sources being simultaneously correct. Without additional context about what each person has argued, asserting a combined correctness makes the option weaker because it treats two unsubstantiated viewpoints as jointly validated.
Option 2: "Eric". This choice singles out Eric as the correct responder or proponent regarding the claim about AGI power control. If Eric has provided reasoning or has expertise indicated by the surrounding context (which is not given here), selecting Eric would align with attributing the correct stance to him. In practice, choosing a single individual often hinges on provided evidence about that person’s argument, authority, or accuracy in the discussion, which we don’t have in this snippet.
Option 3: "Alison". This option designates Alison as the correct individual. To support this choice, one would need to know Alison’s reasoning or position on AGI control, and why it would be the correct interpretation of the statement. Lacking such context, this option risks misattributing the correct stance to Alison without justification.
Across all options, a key consideration is how the statement is presented: "In the future, it might not be possible to control the power of AGI" is a speculative claim about feasibility and governance. The validity of each option depends on who is being credited as providing the correct interpretation or stance on that claim, which is not clearly delineated here. In other words, the evaluation hinges on contextual cues about Eric’s or Alison’s positions, which are not supplied in the question.
Additionally, you might consider potential ambiguities: if "Both" is intended to mean that both Eric and Alison agree or that both are correct individually, that doubles down on the need for separate justification for each person’s claim. If the test expects a single answer, ambiguity in the prompt makes it more challenging to choose without extra context. The overall reasoning would be more robust with a sentence clarifying what each person has stated about AGI control, or with a rubric indicating what makes one person’s view correct versus another.
In summary, Option 1 (Both) requires evidence that both individuals support the same correct interpretation; Option 2 (Eric) requires evidence that Eric alone provides the correct or most accurate stance; Option 3 (Alison) requires evidence that Alison alone provides the correct stance. The lack of accompanying context about Eric’s or Alison’s positions makes it difficult to adjudicate definitively based solely on the prompt as given.

Question at position 12 In the future, it might not be possible to control the power of AGI.BothEricAlison

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

What keeps Mustafa Suleyman up at night when it comes to AI?

Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as “The Godfather” of modern AI, quit his engineering leadership role at Google due to concerns about the existential threat posed by AI.

In the article from popsci.com the term "friendly AI" refers to an AI that is

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单