2014年考研英语二阅览了解第三篇翻译?要点单词汇总
the concept of man versus machine is at least as old as the industrial revolution, but this phenomenon tends to be most acutely felt during economic downturns and fragile recoveries. and yet, it would be a mistake to think we are right now simply experiencing the painful side of a boom and bust cycle. certain jobs have gone away for good, outmoded by machines. since technology has such an insatiable appetite for eating up human jobs, this phenomenon will continue to restructure our economy in ways we cant immediately foresee.
“人机敌对”这一概念至少可以上溯到工业改造时期,但这一表象在经济下滑且复苏乏力的景象下给人的感触最为激烈。可是,那种认为“咱们如今只是是处于昌盛与惨白循环周期的令人苦楚的一面”的主意是个差错。因运用机器而过期的某些作业已永久地不见了。因为技能在吞噬人类作业方面非常“得寸进尺”,所以这一表象将会持续以难以即时意料的方法重构咱们的经济。
when there is rapid improvement in the price and performance of technology, jobs that were once thought to be immune from automation suddenly become threatened. this argument has attracted a lot of attention, via the success of the book race against the machine, by erik brynjolfsson and andrew mcafee, who both hail from mits center for digital business.
当技能在价格、功能方面大为改进时,那些早年被认为对主动化免疫的作业也就会俄然遭到挟制。这一观念得益于《与机器赛跑》一书的热销,已获得广泛重视。该书两位作者埃里克·布伦乔尔森与安德鲁·迈克菲均来自麻省理工学院数字化商业中心。
this is a powerful argument, and a scary one. and yet, john hagel, author of the power of pull and other books, says brynjolfsson and mcafee miss the reason why these jobs are so vulnerable to technology in the first place.
这是个很有说服力,但又让人惊惧的观念。可是,著有《拉动力》和其他书作的约翰哈格尔认为,布伦乔尔森和迈克菲无视了这些作业在技能面前一触即溃的根柢缘由。
hagel says we have designed jobs in the u. s. that tend to be “tightly scripted” and “highly standardized” ones that leave no room for “individual initiative or creativity.” in short, these are the types of jobs that machines can perform much better at than human beings. that is how we have put a giant target sign on the backs of american workers, hagel says.
哈格尔说,在美国,咱们一般把作业方案成“高度方法化”、“高度标准化”,致使于没给我们留下“发扬自个主动性和创造力”的空间。简言之,这些作业归于“机器可以比人类做得好出许多”的类型。哈格尔说,这就是咱们在美国工人背上贴上无量

的进犯标靶的方法。
its not something machines are good at. they are designed to perform very predictable activities.
哈格尔认为,是时分完全改造咱们的作业方法了,因为咱们对作业的认知还停留在20世纪。在经济局势灵敏改动的今日,咱们比以往任何时分都更需要那些在作业中可以发扬主动性、运用愿望力“以唐塞突发作业”的人才。那是机器所不擅长的作业。它们被方案为实施非常简略猜测的行为。
as hagel notes, brynjolfsson and mcafee indeed touched on this point in their book. we need to reframe race against the machine as race with the machine. in other words, we need to look at the ways in which machines can augment human labor rather than replace it. so then the problem is not really about technology, but rather, “how do we innovate our institutions and our work practices?”
王如哈格尔所指出的,布伦乔尔森和迈克菲的确在他们书中说到了这一点。咱们需要把“与机器赛跑”的概念变换成“与机器同跑”。换句??咱们需要去重视机器“增强”人类劳作力的方法,而不是如何“替代”它。所以这样看来,疑问并非真的在于技能本身,而是在于“咱们如何改造咱们的体系和作业方法”。
?
?
?
更多精彩内容请重视微信大众号【晓看天色暮看云ym】