下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
作为众多科技巨头和创业公司的所在地，旧金山常常被视为科技创新的圣地。但近年来，在旧金山，无论是官方还是民间对新兴科技的敌意都在不断增加，其中首当其冲的便是机器人。为什么旧金山不爱机器人？
测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：
antipathy [æn'tɪpəθi] n. 憎恶，反感
innocuous [ɪ'nɒkjuəs] adj. 无害的，无毒的
droid [drɔɪd] n. 人形机器人
deploy [dɪ'plɔɪ] vt./vi. 展开，配置，部署
roam [rəʊm] vi. 漫游，闲逛
encampment [ɪn'kæmpmənt] n. 设营，野营
vandalism ['vændəlɪzəm] n. 故意破坏，破坏行为
squalor ['skwɒlə（r）] n. 肮脏，脏污
阅读马上开始，建议您计算一下阅读整篇文章所用的时间，对照下方的参考值就可以评估出您的英文阅读水平。
San Francisco's anti-tech backlash has a new target: robots. This is a place that ought to love artificial intelligence. After all, Silicon Valley is home to some of the most advanced robotics labs in the worlD.But when it comes to sharing its sidewalks with these technological wonders, San Francisco has said, “Forget it.”
The city recently cracked down on delivery robots — autonomous devices such as those tested by Yelp's Eat24 service last year, that travel on the sidewalk to distribute food and other essentials to customers. New rules limit them to a speed of 3mph, and require a human operator nearby. Moreover, only nine delivery robots can be tested in the city at any time, dashing the hopes of start-ups that had envisioned fleets of self-driving bots taking hot pizza to hungry millennials.
Like many Silicon Valley innovations, the robots have found their least welcoming audience at home. In fact, several of the city's most prominent start-ups have faced some of their toughest opposition here.
Take Airbnb, the accommodation company. In 2016, San Francisco passed a law on home-sharing that was so restrictive, Airbnb sued the city over it. （That lawsuit has been settled, but all Airbnb hosts in SF must still obtain a business licence and registration before they can let their homes.） The same goes for Uber and Lyft: city leaders routinely lambast them for causing congestion and double parking. More than half of all traffic violations in the downtown area are attributable to Uber and Lyft drivers, according to a police study.
Amid this broader antipathy towards tech, robots have come to occupy a special place of loathing in San Francisco. An incident in December highlighted the depths of the city's dislike.
It began innocuously, with an animal shelter in a high-crime area paying for a robot “security guard” to help monitor its campus and the surrounding streets. The 5ft, 400lb droid takes photographs and records video footage, and has the ability to summon human help when it detects unusual activity. Made by Knightscope, a start-up based in the Valley, this autonomous device is most commonly deployed to roam parking lots and malls. （One even fell into a mall fountain earlier this year, prompting an internet outpouring over the robot who “drowned himself”.）
The pet shelter initially reported good results from the security robot, with fewer car break-ins. However, controversy arose over its powers of surveillance, and at one point it was kidnappeD.Unknown assailants covered the robot with a tarp and smeared barbecue sauce on its sensors to block them. The president of the pet shelter at first alleged the perpetrators came from a nearby homeless encampment but later said she wasn't sure.
News of the kidnapped robot spread, and the town quickly took aim at the pet shelter, accusing it of deploying a robot to keep its homeless neighbours away. The shelter received “hundreds of messages inciting violence and vandalism against our facility”, it said in a statement. The city of San Francisco weighed in too, threatening to fine the shelter for operating the robot on public sidewalks without a licence. To quell the outrage, the shelter sent the machine back to its manufacturer.
There are several lessons to draw from this tale. First, the issue of homelessness never fails to spark controversy in San Francisco, where the squalor of the public streets is in stark contrast to the wealth that exists behind closed doors.
The second is that it is easier to blame the robot. Instead of asking why the neighbourhood has become so dangerous that a pet shelter should need protection, it's more convenient to target a machine.
The third lesson is that robots do not have a home-court advantage in San Francisco. The opposite is true. After the crackdown, robots will not be delivering pizza, and security droids will become scarcer. The robots will still serve one purpose, though — as a scapegoat for problems whose roots are all too human.
请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：
A.can be tested in the city at fixed times.
B.are not allowed to deliver food.
C.can only travel on the sidewalk.
D.must work with a human operator.
答案 (1)
A.To explain why delivery robots are not welcomed in San Francisco.
B.To prove San Francisco is an unfriendly place for technical innovations.
C.To argue robot start-ups should obtain a business licence and registration.
D.To suggest robot companies sue San Francisco over the strict regulations.
答案 (2)
A.They can alert the manager automatically in an emergency.
B.They are made by the self-driving start-up Yelp in 2016.
C.The pet shelter use the security robot to keep tramps away.
D.The shelter gave up security robot under pressure from the public.
答案 (3)
A.Optimistic.
B.Skeptical.
C.Supportive.
D.Restrained.
答案 (4)
(1) 答案： D.must work with a human operator.解释：新的规定将他们的速度限制在每小时3英里以下，并且必须有操作人员在旁边。
(2) 答案：B.To prove San Francisco is an unfriendly place for technical innovations.解释：事实上，旧金山一些最着名的创业公司都在本土遇到了最强硬的反对，比如Airbnb。
(3) 答案：D.The shelter gave up security robot under pressure from the public.解释：为了平息愤怒，救助站把机器送还了制造商。
(4) 答案：C.Supportive.解释：作者批评旧金山对技术创新的消极态度，认为机器人成了人类问题的替罪羊。