Just last month，AI-generated art arrived on the auction（拍賣） stage of Christie's，proving that artificial intelligence can not only be creative but also produce world-class works of art—another significant AI milestone blurring the line between humans and machines.
   Naturally，the news sparked off debates about whether the work produced by Paris-based art collective Obvious could really be called art at all.Popular opinion among creatives is that art is a process by which human beings express some ideas or emotions，filter them through personal experience and set them against a broader cultural context.The story raised additional questions about ownership.In this circumstance，who can really be named as the author？The algorithm（算法） itself or the team behind it？
   At GumGum，an AI company that focuses on computer vision，we wanted to explore the intersection of AI and art by devising a Turing Test of our own in association with Rutgers University's Art and Artificial Intelligence Lab and Cloud-painter，an artificially intelligent painting robot.We were keen to see whether AI can，in fact，replicate（復(fù)制） the intent and imagination of traditional artists，and we wanted to explore the potential impact of AI on the creative sector.
   To do this，we enlisted a broad collection of diverse artists from traditional paint-on-canvas artists to 3-D rendering and modeling artists alongside Pindar Van Arman—a classically trained artist who has been coding art robots for 15 years.Van Arman was tasked with using his Cloudpainter machine to create pieces of art based on the same data set as the more traditional artists.This data set was a collection of art by 20th century American Abstract Expressionists.Then，we asked them to document the process，showing us their preferred tools and telling us how they came to their final work.
   Amazingly，while at face value the AI artwork was indistinguishable from that of the more traditional artists，the test revealed that the creative spark and ultimate agency behind creating a work of art are still very human.Even though the Cloudpainter machine has evolved over time to become a highly intelligent system capable of making creative decisions of its own，the final piece of work could only be described as a collaboration（合作） between humans and machines.Van Arman served as more of an "art director for the painting".
   As AI becomes an unstoppable force，it raises some difficult questions about the fixture role of humans in an increasingly automated world.Instead of worrying about AI's threat to human creative supremacy，the future will be about accepting new technologies and the possibilities it brings for speeding up the process.It's better to think of AI as your next creative assistant；beautiful pieces of work can be produced in collaboration with it.
（1）According to popular opinion，the AI-generated work

C

C

.
A．should have been based on personal experience
B．was set against a broader cultural context
C．couldn't be considered art at all
D．expressed no idea or emotion
（2）What did the experiment at GumGum show？

D

D

A．AI artworks could be easily identified.
B．AI artworks could show human emotions.
C．AI had trouble making sensible decisions.
D．AI couldn't complete a work independently.
（3）Which of the following statements would the author agree with？

B

B

A．Beautiful pieces cannot be works of AI.
B．AI could be an advanced tool for artists.
C．AI could challenge the supremacy of humans.
D．New technologies can pose a danger to humans.
（4）What is the best title for the passage？

A

A

A．Can AI Create True Art？
B．Can AI Threaten Humans？
C．Will Human Art Disappear？
D．Are AI Artworks Distinguishable？