Need the Living with artificial intelligence IELTS Reading Answers? You have found the complete page: the full passage, every question in Questions 14–26, the official answer key, and a careful explanation of each answer. The passage asks whether powerful AI can be kept safely aligned with human values, and what it would mean if machines policed those values for us.

This passage is taken from Cambridge IELTS 18, Academic Test 2, Reading Passage 2 (Questions 14–26). It combines multiple choice, Yes/No/Not Given and a summary with phrase options, so it tests both close reading and the writer’s opinion. Have a go under timed conditions, then work through the explanations below to see the evidence behind every answer. For the whole test, visit our Cambridge IELTS 18 Academic Reading Test 2 answers page, and for guided practice, start our free IELTS reading course.

Reading Passage 2

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14–26, which are based on Reading Passage 2 below.

Living with artificial intelligence

Powerful artificial intelligence (AI) needs to be reliably aligned with human values, but

does this mean AI will eventually have to

police those values?

This has been the decade of AI, with one astonishing feat after another. A chess-playing AI that can defeat not only all human chess players, but also all previous human-programmed chess machines, after learning the game in just four hours? That’s yesterday’s news, what’s next? True, these prodigious accomplishments are all in so-called narrow AI, where machines perform highly specialised tasks. But many experts believe this restriction is very temporary. By mid-century, we may have artificial general intelligence (AGI) – machines that can achieve human-level performance on the full range of tasks that we ourselves can tackle.

If so, there’s little reason to think it will stop there. Machines will be free of many of the physical constraints on human intelligence. Our brains run at slow biochemical processing speeds on the power of a light bulb, and their size is restricted by the dimensions of the human birth canal. It is remarkable what they accomplish, given these handicaps. But they may be as far from the physical limits of thought as our eyes are from the incredibly powerful Webb Space Telescope.

Once machines are better than us at designing even smarter machines, progress towards these limits could accelerate. What would this mean for us? Could we ensure a safe and worthwhile coexistence with such machines? On the plus side, AI is already useful and profitable for many things, and super AI might be expected to be super useful and super profitable. But the more powerful AI becomes, the more important it will be to specify its goals with great care. Folklore is full of tales of people who ask for the wrong thing, with disastrous consequences- King Midas, for example, might have wished that everything he touched turned to gold, but didn’t really intend this to apply to his breakfast.

So we need to create powerful AI machines that are ‘human-friendly’- that have goals reliably aligned with our own values. One thing that makes this task difficult is that we are far from reliably human-friendly ourselves. We do many terrible things to each other and to many other creatures with whom we share the planet. If superintendent machines don’t do a lot better than us, we’ll be in deep trouble. We’ll have powerful new intelligence amplifying the dark sides of our own fallible natures.

For safety’s sake, then, we want the machines to be ethically as well as cognitively superhuman. We want them to aim for the moral high ground, not for the troughs in which many of us spend some of our time. Luckily they’ll be smart enough for the job. If there are routes to the moral high ground, they’ll be better than us at finding them, and steering us in the right direction.

However, there are two big problems with this utopian vision. One is how we get the machines started on the journey, the other is what it would mean to reach this destination. The ‘getting started’ problem is that we need to tell the machines what they’re looking for with sufficient clarity that we can be confident they will find it – whatever ‘it’ actually turns out to be. This won’t be easy, given that we are tribal creatures and conflicted about the ideals ourselves. We often ignore the suffering of strangers, and even contribute to it, at least indirectly. How then, do we point machines in the direction of something better?

As for the ‘destination’ problem, we might, by putting ourselves in the hands of these moral guides and gatekeepers, be sacrificing our own autonomy – an important part of what makes us human. Machines who are better than us at sticking to the moral high ground may be expected to discourage some of the lapses we presently take for granted. We might lose our freedom to discriminate in favour of our own communities, for example.

Loss of freedom to behave badly isn’t always a bad thing, of course: denying ourselves the freedom to put children to work in factories, or to smoke in restaurants are signs of progress. But are we ready for ethical silicon police limiting our options? They might be so good at doing it that we won’t notice them; but few of us are likely to welcome such a future.

These issues might seem far-fetched, but they are to some extent already here. AI already has some input into how resources are used in our National Health Service (NHS) here in the UK, for example. If it was given a greater role, it might do so much more efficiently than humans can manage, and act in the interests of taxpayers and those who use the health system. However, we’d be depriving some humans (e.g. senior doctors) of the control they presently enjoy. Since we’d want to ensure that people are treated equally and that policies are fair, the goals of AI would need to be specified correctly.

We have a new powerful technology to deal with- itself, literally, a new way of thinking. For our own safety, we need to point these new thinkers in the right direction, and get them to act well for us. It is not yet clear whether this is possible, but if it is, it will require a cooperative spirit, and a willingness to set aside self-interest.

Both general intelligence and moral reasoning are often thought to be uniquely human capacities. But safety seems to require that we think of them as a package: if we are to give general intelligence to machines, we’ll need to give them moral authority, too. And where exactly would that leave human beings? All the more reason to think about the destination now, and to be careful about what we wish for.

Questions 14–26

Questions 14–19

Choose the correct letter, A , B , C or D .

Write the correct letter in boxes on your answer sheet.

14. What point does the writer make about AI in the first paragraph? It is difficult to predict how quickly AI will progress. Much can be learned about the use of AI in chess machines. The future is unlikely to see limitations on the capabilities of AI. Experts disagree on which specialised tasks AI will be able to perform.

15. What is the writer doing in the second paragraph? explaining why machines will be able to outperform humans describing the characteristics that humans and machines share giving information about the development of machine intelligence indicating which aspects of humans are the most advanced

16. Why does the writer mention the story of King Midas? to compare different visions of progress to illustrate that poorly defined objectives can go wrong to emphasise the need for cooperation to point out the financial advantages of a course of action

17. What challenge does the writer refer to in the fourth paragraph? encouraging humans to behave in a more principled way deciding which values we want AI to share with us creating a better world for all creatures on the planet ensuring AI is more human-friendly than we are ourselves

18. What does the writer suggest about the future of AI in the fifth paragraph? The safety of machines will become a key issue. It is hard to know what impact machines will have on the world. Machines will be superior to humans in certain respects. Many humans will oppose machines having a wider role.

19. Which of the following best summarises the writer’s argument in the sixth paragraph? More intelligent machines will result in greater abuses of power. Machine learning will share very few features with human learning. There are a limited number of people with the knowledge to program machines. Human shortcomings will make creating the machines we need more difficult.

• A — It is difficult to predict how quickly AI will progress.
• B — Much can be learned about the use of AI in chess machines.
• C — The future is unlikely to see limitations on the capabilities of AI.
• D — Experts disagree on which specialised tasks AI will be able to perform.

Questions 20–23

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in The Reading Passage?

In boxes on your answer sheet, write

YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writer

NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

20. Machines with the ability to make moral decisions may prevent us from promoting the interests of our communities. YES NO NOT GIVEN

21. Silicon police would need to exist in large numbers in order to be effective. YES NO NOT GIVEN

22. Many people are comfortable with the prospect of their independence being restricted by machines. YES NO NOT GIVEN

23. If we want to ensure that machines act in our best interests, we all need to work together. YES NO NOT GIVEN

• A — YES
• B — NO
• C — NOT GIVEN

Questions 24–26

Complete the summary using the list of phrases, A-F , below.

Write the correct letter, A-F , in boxes on your answer sheet.

Using AI in the UK health system

Drag and drop an option to fill in each blank.

• A. medical practitioners
• B. specialised tasks
• C. available resources
• D. reduced illness
• E. professional authority
• F. technology experts

• Complete the summary using the list of phrases, A-F , below. Write the correct letter, A-F , in boxes on your answer sheet. Using AI in the UK health system AI currently has a limited role in the way 24 ………… are allocated in the health service. The positive aspect of AI having a bigger role is that it would be more efficient and lead to patient benefits. However, such a change would result, for example, in certain 25 ………… not having their current level of 26 ………… . It is therefore important that AI goals are appropriate so that discriminatory practices could be avoided.

Living with artificial intelligence IELTS Reading Answers

Questions and Answers

Detailed Explanations for Living with artificial intelligence Answers

Questions 14–19

14. C — The writer’s point in the first paragraph is that the limits of today’s AI will not last, because “many experts believe this restriction is very temporary”. That supports the option saying the future is unlikely to see limitations on AI’s capabilities.

15. A — Paragraph two explains why machines will outthink us: they will be “free of many of the physical constraints on human intelligence”, from slow brains to the size limits set by the birth canal. Explaining machine superiority is exactly what the writer is doing there.

16. B — King Midas illustrates badly specified goals, since folklore is full of people who “ask for the wrong thing, with disastrous consequences”. The story is a warning about careless goal-setting, which is option B.

17. D — The challenge in the fourth paragraph is that “we are far from reliably human-friendly ourselves”, so building human-friendly machines is harder than it sounds. Ensuring AI is more human-friendly than we are is the difficulty the writer refers to.

18. C — In the fifth paragraph the writer wants machines that are ethically as well as cognitively superhuman, noting that if routes to the moral high ground exist, “they’ll be better than us at finding them”. Machines superior to humans in certain respects is therefore the suggestion.

19. D — The sixth paragraph summarises the getting started problem: it will not be easy because “we are tribal creatures and conflicted about the ideals ourselves”. Human shortcomings making the task harder is the best summary of that argument.

Questions 20–23

20. YES — The writer states we might “lose our freedom to discriminate in favour of our own communities” under moral gatekeeper machines. Preventing us from promoting our own communities is exactly what the statement claims, so it is YES.

21. NOT GIVEN — The passage says silicon police might be so good at limiting our options that we would not notice them, but it never discusses how many of them would need to exist to work well. There is no information about their numbers, so the answer is NOT GIVEN.

22. NO — The opposite is stated: “few of us are likely to welcome such a future”. If few people would welcome it, most people are not comfortable with the prospect, so the statement contradicts the writer.

23. YES — Near the end the writer says success would require “a cooperative spirit, and a willingness to set aside self-interest”. Working together to ensure machines act in our interests matches that claim, so the answer is YES.

Questions 24–26

24. C — The summary’s first gap is about allocation in the health service, and the passage notes AI already has input into “how resources are used in our National Health Service”. Available resources is the phrase that fits the allocation gap.

25. A — The second gap names the people who would lose control, and the passage imagines “depriving some humans (e.g. senior doctors) of the control they presently enjoy”. Medical practitioners covers senior doctors, so option A completes the summary.

26. E — The final gap is what those practitioners would lose, and the passage says senior doctors would be deprived “of the control they presently enjoy”. That current level of professional authority is captured by option E, professional authority.

Key Vocabulary from Living with artificial intelligence

Study Tips

Multiple choice dominates Questions 14–19, and each item targets one paragraph, so read the options before the paragraph to know what you are hunting for. Eliminate the two clearly wrong options first, then decide between the survivors using the writer’s exact claim, as in Question 19 where the answer hinges on one phrase about tribal creatures. The multiple choice strategy guide gives you a fast elimination routine for exactly this situation.

Questions 20–23 test the writer’s views, so the answers must come from opinions, not facts reported neutrally. Not Given items like Question 21 fail because the passage discusses quality, not quantity, of silicon police, and you must resist using outside knowledge about AI. Our Yes/No/Not Given guide explains the difference between writer’s-claims questions and factual ones.

The final summary is completed with phrases rather than words, so grammar does most of the work for you. Gap 25 must name a kind of person and gap 26 must name something they hold, which narrows the six options to two before you even scan the passage. Read more about this shortcut in the summary completion strategy guide.

Practice More Cambridge Tests

Abstract passages like this one get much easier once you can track a writer’s argument, and that is a skill you can train. Simply IELTS built the free IELTS reading course for exactly that, with guided practice on opinion and argument questions. When you are ready, move straight on to the An ideal city walkthrough, the Passage 3 of the same test.

Want more practice at this position? Every Reading Passage 2 test on the site follows the same Cambridge format, and each one includes a complete answer key with explanations.