Questões de Concurso Para analista legislativo

Foram encontradas 12.173 questões

Resolva questões gratuitamente!

Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!

Q2326046 Direito Administrativo
Ao realizar um levantamento acerca das alegações de defesa da União nas ações indenizatórias em decorrência da responsabilidade civil do Estado ajuizadas em face do mencionado ente federativo, Kelvin verificou que: em algumas situações, foi alegada a culpa concorrente da vítima para o evento danoso; em outras, foi sustentada a existência de fato exclusivo de terceiro; além daquelas em que foi argumentado que os danos decorreram de caso fortuito ou força maior.

Diante de tais circunstâncias, Kelvin concluiu que causas excludentes da responsabilidade civil do Estado 
Alternativas
Q2326045 Direito Administrativo
Felício é servidor público federal estável, ocupante do cargo de analista legislativo da Câmara dos Deputados. Ele almeja pleitear a reconsideração de uma decisão administrativa que indeferiu pedido de licença para tratamento de assuntos pessoais por ele formulada, por acreditar que tem direito ao benefício pleiteado em razão de argumentos que não foram considerados pela autoridade que proferiu a primeira decisão.

Acerca dessa situação hipotética, à luz do direito de petição consagrado na Lei nº 8.112/1990, é correto afirmar que
Alternativas
Q2326044 Direito Digital
Jaqueline e Isabel são amigas muito próximas que tiveram que realizar o tratamento de dados pessoais no exercício de suas atividades profissionais, sendo certo que Jaqueline o fez para fim exclusivamente jornalístico e Isabel, para fim exclusivamente acadêmico.

Elas estão debatendo a aplicabilidade da Lei nº 13.709/2018 em cada um dos casos especificados, de modo que concluíram corretamente que tal norma
Alternativas
Q2326043 Direito Administrativo
As autoridades competentes no âmbito da Câmara dos Deputados almejam realizar um procedimento de manifestação de interesse, com vistas a viabilizar que a iniciativa privada contribua com soluções tecnológicas inovadoras, que possam causar impacto de relevância pública na otimização de suas atividades, sendo certo que pretende restringir a participação em tal procedimento às chamadas startups.

Diante da mencionada situação hipotética, à luz do disposto na Lei nº 14.133/2021, é correto afirmar que
Alternativas
Q2326042 Regimento Interno
Joana, servidora pública do Estado Alfa, foi eleita Deputada Federal, mas iniciara o gozo de licença maternidade dias antes da primeira sessão preparatória para a instalação da primeira sessão legislativa da legislatura.

Observados os termos da narrativa, é correto afirmar que a posse de Joana, nos termos do Regimento Interno da Câmara dos Deputados
Alternativas
Q2326041 Regimento Interno
No início de determinada legislatura, houve grande movimentação no âmbito da Câmara dos Deputados para a escolha dos denominados Líderes.

João, servidor do Partido Político Alfa, ao se inteirar sobre as regras a serem observadas nesse processo de escolha, concluiu corretamente, à luz do Regimento Interno da Câmara dos Deputados, que a referida escolha
Alternativas
Q2326040 Direito Constitucional
Maria e Helena, estudiosas do direito constitucional, travaram intenso debate a respeito da possibilidade, ou não, de o não pagamento da dívida pública ensejar a decretação de intervenção federal, pelo Presidente da República, em algum Estado da Federação.

Maria defendia que a suspensão do pagamento da dívida pública, desde que flutuante, poderia ensejar essa medida, que se daria na modalidade de intervenção espontânea. Helena, por sua vez, apregoava que a suspensão do pagamento da dívida pública, desde que consolidada, permitiria a adoção dessa medida, que observaria a modalidade de intervenção provocada.

Inês, ao analisar o posicionamento de Maria e Helena, concluiu corretamente, à luz da sistemática constitucional, considerando, de um lado, o fato deflagrador da intervenção, e, do outro, de modo autônomo, a respectiva modalidade de intervenção, na perspectiva da suspensão do pagamento da dívida pública, que
Alternativas
Q2326039 Direito Constitucional
Maria, servidora pública federal ocupante de cargo de provimento efetivo, após cumprir os requisitos para a aposentadoria voluntária, teve sua aposentadoria deferida pela autoridade federal competente.

Essa autoridade, seguindo orientação de um assessor, encaminhou ao Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU), dias depois, o processo administrativo que resultou no ato de aposentação. O Tribunal, ao apreciar o caso no ano seguinte, identificou o não preenchimento do requisito do tempo de contribuição mínimo e se negou a realizar o registro do ato, sem ter ouvido previamente Maria.

Considerando os termos dessa narrativa, à luz dos balizamentos estabelecidos pela Constituição da República de 1988, é correto afirmar que
Alternativas
Q2326038 Direito Constitucional
Pedro, Deputado Federal, recebeu, na última semana, diversos representantes do funcionalismo público nos segmentos estadual, distrital e municipal, ocasião em que solicitaram a apresentação de projeto de lei ordinária dispondo sobre a disciplina a ser observada pelos entes federativos que desejassem instituir regimes próprios de previdência social.

Após ouvir todos os segmentos interessados, Pedro concluiu corretamente, à luz da sistemática constitucional, que a proposição 
Alternativas
Q2326037 Direito Constitucional
Ingo, de nacionalidade alemã, era casado com Brigitte, de nacionalidade austríaca. Dessa união, nasceu Júlia, que se naturalizou mexicana. Ingo tinha um apartamento no Brasil, onde a família passava férias regularmente e que passou a ser a residência de Júlia nos três últimos anos, considerando a sua afinidade com a cultura brasileira.

Com o falecimento de Ingo, Júlia consultou um advogado a respeito da aplicação, ou não, da lei brasileira, na disciplina da sucessão do referido apartamento.

À luz da Constituição da República de 1988, o advogado respondeu corretamente que a sucessão do referido apartamento 
Alternativas
Q2326036 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
“as yet” in “there is as yet little evidence” (4th paragraph) can be replaced without significant change of meaning by
Alternativas
Q2326035 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, when the paper mentions an “upheaval”, it refers to the possibility of a future 
Alternativas
Q2326034 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
By calling some economists “doom-mongers” in “Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation” (2nd paragraph), the authors
Alternativas
Q2326033 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
If someone ends up “on the economic scrapheap” (1st paragraph), this person will feel
Alternativas
Q2326032 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
The adjective in “astonishing breakthroughs” (1st paragraph) is similar in meaning to 
Alternativas
Q2326031 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
The title of the article means to 
Alternativas
Q2326030 Inglês
Read Text II and answer the question that follow it


Text II


Boy cries Wolf


     After astonishing breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, many people worry that they will end up on the economic scrapheap. Global Google searches for “is my job safe?” have doubled in recent months, as people fear that they will be replaced with large language models (LLMS). Some evidence suggests that widespread disruption is coming. In a recent paper Tyna Eloundou of OpenAI and colleagues say that “around 80% of the US workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMS”. Another paper suggests that legal services, accountancy and travel agencies will face unprecedented upheaval.


     Economists, however, tend to enjoy making predictions about automation more than they enjoy testing them. In the early 2010s many of them loudly predicted that robots would kill jobs by the millions, only to fall silent when employment rates across the rich world rose to all-time highs. Few of the doom-mongers have a good explanation for why countries with the highest rates of tech usage around the globe, such as Japan, Singapore and South Korea, consistently have among the lowest rates of unemployment.


     Here we introduce our first attempt at tracking AI’s impact on jobs. Using American data on employment by occupation, we single out white-collar workers. These include people working in everything from back-office support and financial operations to copy-writers. White-collar roles are thought to be especially vulnerable to generative AI, which is becoming ever better at logical reasoning and creativity.


     However, there is as yet little evidence of an AI hit to employment. In the spring of 2020 white-collar jobs rose as a share of the total, as many people in service occupations lost their job at the start of the covid-19 pandemic. The white-collar share is lower today, as leisure and hospitality have recovered. Yet in the past year the share of employment in professions supposedly at risk from generative AI has risen by half a percentage point.


     It is, of course, early days. Few firms yet use generative-AI tools at scale, so the impact on jobs could merely be delayed. Another possibility, however, is that these new technologies will end up destroying only a small number of roles. While AI may be efficient at some tasks, it may be less good at others, such as management and working out what others need.


     AI could even have a positive effect on jobs. If workers using it become more efficient, profits at their company could rise which would then allow bosses to ramp up hiring. A recent survey by Experis, an IT-recruitment firm, points to this possibility. More than half of Britain’s employers expect AI technologies to have a positive impact on their headcount over the next two years, it finds.


     To see how it all shakes out, we will publish updates to this analysis every few months. But for now, a jobs apocalypse seems a way off.


From The Economist June 17th 2023, p. 71
Based on Text II, mark the statements below as TRUE (T) or FALSE (F).

( ) Many believe AI will eventually make jobs redundant.
( ) The conclusion of the text is that the current outlook regarding employment is rather bleak.
( ) The authors prefer to probe forthcoming evidence before issuing unequivocal accounts.

The statements are, respectively,
Alternativas
Q2326029 Inglês
Read Text I and answer the question that follow it.


Text I



Generative Art – What’s real?


     There is nothing new about the concept and creation of ‘artificial intelligence art’ or ‘generative art’. However, discussion of its legal and ethical or societal implications (both intended and unintended) hit the headlines last week.


     Boris Eldagsen refused his Sony World Photography Award 2023 prize in the creative open category on the basis that his entry was the product of artificial intelligence. Mr Eldagsen himself has sparked the latest debate by claiming that “AI is not photography” and that the rationale for entering the Awards with the work in question was “…to find out if the competitions are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not”.


     The reaction of the World Photography Organisation (running the Sony Awards) has been to acknowledge the need for an element of human involvement, which is the crux of the debate: “While elements of AI practices are relevant in artistic contexts of image-making, the Awards always have been and will continue to be a platform for championing the excellence and skill of photographers and artists working in this medium”.


     […]


     The conventional (and long assumed) approach has been to recognise the importance of the human hand to an artwork. The question then is: to what extent is the human creator or inputter the ‘artist’ as opposed to the generative system or is the system merely representing the human creator or inputter’s artistic idea? Flowing from that question is what that might then mean in terms of the ownership and value of such works. The debate looks set to continue in this particular context of imagery creation and reproduction coinciding with the increasing availability and use of consumer-grade AI image generation programmes, and the natural inclination of artists to continue to create.


Adapted from https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/insight/generative-art-whats-real/
The phrase “The crux of the debate” (3rd paragraph) is the same as the 
Alternativas
Q2326028 Inglês
Read Text I and answer the question that follow it.


Text I



Generative Art – What’s real?


     There is nothing new about the concept and creation of ‘artificial intelligence art’ or ‘generative art’. However, discussion of its legal and ethical or societal implications (both intended and unintended) hit the headlines last week.


     Boris Eldagsen refused his Sony World Photography Award 2023 prize in the creative open category on the basis that his entry was the product of artificial intelligence. Mr Eldagsen himself has sparked the latest debate by claiming that “AI is not photography” and that the rationale for entering the Awards with the work in question was “…to find out if the competitions are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not”.


     The reaction of the World Photography Organisation (running the Sony Awards) has been to acknowledge the need for an element of human involvement, which is the crux of the debate: “While elements of AI practices are relevant in artistic contexts of image-making, the Awards always have been and will continue to be a platform for championing the excellence and skill of photographers and artists working in this medium”.


     […]


     The conventional (and long assumed) approach has been to recognise the importance of the human hand to an artwork. The question then is: to what extent is the human creator or inputter the ‘artist’ as opposed to the generative system or is the system merely representing the human creator or inputter’s artistic idea? Flowing from that question is what that might then mean in terms of the ownership and value of such works. The debate looks set to continue in this particular context of imagery creation and reproduction coinciding with the increasing availability and use of consumer-grade AI image generation programmes, and the natural inclination of artists to continue to create.


Adapted from https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/insight/generative-art-whats-real/
In the first paragraph, the relation between the two sentences is one of
Alternativas
Q2326027 Inglês
Read Text I and answer the question that follow it.


Text I



Generative Art – What’s real?


     There is nothing new about the concept and creation of ‘artificial intelligence art’ or ‘generative art’. However, discussion of its legal and ethical or societal implications (both intended and unintended) hit the headlines last week.


     Boris Eldagsen refused his Sony World Photography Award 2023 prize in the creative open category on the basis that his entry was the product of artificial intelligence. Mr Eldagsen himself has sparked the latest debate by claiming that “AI is not photography” and that the rationale for entering the Awards with the work in question was “…to find out if the competitions are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not”.


     The reaction of the World Photography Organisation (running the Sony Awards) has been to acknowledge the need for an element of human involvement, which is the crux of the debate: “While elements of AI practices are relevant in artistic contexts of image-making, the Awards always have been and will continue to be a platform for championing the excellence and skill of photographers and artists working in this medium”.


     […]


     The conventional (and long assumed) approach has been to recognise the importance of the human hand to an artwork. The question then is: to what extent is the human creator or inputter the ‘artist’ as opposed to the generative system or is the system merely representing the human creator or inputter’s artistic idea? Flowing from that question is what that might then mean in terms of the ownership and value of such works. The debate looks set to continue in this particular context of imagery creation and reproduction coinciding with the increasing availability and use of consumer-grade AI image generation programmes, and the natural inclination of artists to continue to create.


Adapted from https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/insight/generative-art-whats-real/
Based on Text I, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).

( ) The dawning of generative art has given rise to a quandary.
( ) The winner mentioned was thrilled with the prize he was awarded.
( ) The organization responsible for the award stood by their earlier statement that AI yields finer art than that of humans.

The statements are, respectively,
Alternativas
Respostas
3441: E
3442: A
3443: D
3444: B
3445: E
3446: B
3447: C
3448: C
3449: A
3450: D
3451: C
3452: E
3453: D
3454: B
3455: D
3456: A
3457: E
3458: B
3459: A
3460: C