Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions as directed.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is all the rage these days. A recent article noted that ‘robots’ — shorthand for AI in the tabloids — will be able to write a fiction bestseller within 50 years. I suppose that would be shocking to me as a novelist if most fiction bestsellers were not already being written by ‘robots’. Or so one feels, keeping publishing and other vogues in mind: a bit of this, a bit of that, a dash of something else, and voila you have a bestseller! In that sense, perhaps the rise of AI will make us reconsider what we mean by human intelligence. This discussion has been neglected for far too long. Take my field: literature. The Chinese company, Cheers Publishing, lately offered a collection of poems written by a computer program. So, are poets, generally considered to be suicidal in any case, jumping off the cliffs in droves as a consequence?
 Well, this is a selection from one of the AI poems I found online: “The rain is blowing through the sea / A

bird in the sky / A night of light and calm / Sunlight / Now in the sky / Cool heart / The savage north wind

/ When I found a new world.”
 Yes, there are aspiring poets — and sometimes established ones — who write like this, connecting words centripetally or centrifugally to create an effect. I think they should have been pushed off literary cliffs a long time ago. Because this is not poetry; this is just the technique of assembling words like poetry. There is a difference between the intelligence required to write poetry and the skills required to write it. That poetic intelligence is lost without the required poetic skills, but the skills on their own do not (A)suffice either. The fact that lines like this, written by AI, can be considered poetry does not reflect on the intelligence of AI. It reflects on the intelligence of those readers, writers, critics, editors, publishers and academics who have not yet distinguished between gimmickry and mimicry on the one side and the actual freshness of a chiselled line on the other. But this is a small example. Surely, AI might also make (B)_____________, including that of considering something like IQ to be a sufficient index of human mental capacity! Because if we think that AI can replace human intelligence, then we are simply not thinking hard enough. (C) One of the major (1) activity here is that of considering (2) intelligence to be something (3) different from and raised above the (4) failures of living. This leads to the misconception that intelligence can be (D)___ to something else — say, a robot — without becoming something else. Human intelligence cannot be passed on to something else: What is “passed on” is always a different kind of ‘intelligence’. Even the arguments that AI — or, as in the past, robots — can enable human beings to lead a gloriously workless existence is based on a similar misconception. Because human intelligence is embedded in human existence, ‘work’ as human activity in the world is not something human beings can do without.

Q:

Out of the following options which option does support the statement “There is a difference between the intelligence required to write poetry and the skills required to write it,” made by the author in the paragraph?

• 1
  There are aspiring poets who write like this, connecting words centripetally or centrifugally to create an effect, this is not poetry; this is just the technique of assembling words like poetry.
• 2
  That would be shocking to me as a novelist if most fiction bestsellers were not already being written by ‘robots.’
• 3
  The lines written by AI considered as poetry does not reflect on the intelligence of AI.
• 4
  Both (b) and (c)
• 5
  None of the above