题目内容：

    You may think that creativity and artistic judgment are what sets humans apart from artificial intelligence (AI). Robots will be washing our windows long before they start creating masterpieces Right?

Not necessarily. At Amper Music (www.ampermusic.com), you can make the music you want based on mood, instrument, speed and length. You click “Render,” and boom! There’s your original piece, not only composed (作曲) but also “performed” and “mixed” by AI software.

But something has kept bothering me: What happens in a world where effort and scarcity (稀缺) are no longer part of the definition of art? A mass-produced print of the Mona Lisa is worth less than the actual Leonardo painting. Why? Scarcity—there’s only one of the original. But Amper turns. professional-quality original piece of music every time you click “Render.” It puts us in a strange world where works of art are unique but require almost zero human effort to produce. Should anyone pay for these things? And if an artist puts AI masterpieces up for sale, what should the price be?

That’s not just a thought experiment either. Soon the question “What’s the value of AI artwork and music?” will start impacting flesh—and—blood consumers. It has already, in fact.

Earlier, reporters discovered something suspicious (可疑的) about many playlists of Spotify—another online music service. According to the report, the composers and bands who wrote the songs appeared to be nonexistent. These playlists have names like Peaceful Piano and Ambient Chill—exactly the kind of music AI software is good at.

Is Spotify using software to compose music to avoid paying fees to human musicians? The New York Times reported that the tracks with false names have been played 500 million times, which would ordinarily have cost Spotify $3 million in payments.

But Spotify has firmly denied that the tracks in question were created by “fake” artists to avoid payments: while posted under pennames, they were written by actual people receiving actual money for work that they own. But the broader issue remains. Why couldn’t Spotify, or any music service, start using AI to produce free music to save itself money? Automation (自动化) is beginning to replace millions of human taxi drivers, truck drivers and fast-food workers. Why should artists and musicians be an exception to the same economics?

Should there be anything in place—a union, a law---to stop that from happening? Or will we always value human-produced art and music more than machine-made stuff? Once we’ve answered those questions, we can settle the really big one: When an AI—composed song wins the Grammy, who will be awarded?

1.What do we know from the example of Amper Music?

A.It doesn’t need any human effort to compose music.

B.It allows ordinary people to perform their own music.

C.It makes a challenge to the traditional definition of art.

D.It produces music works that are similar in styles.

2.The underlined part in Paragraph 4 implies that ________.

A.it is hard to tell AI artworks apart from human artworks

B.people will be charged for AI art in the near future

C.people don’t know what price of AI art is reasonable

D.the scarcity of AI artworks means it is one of a copy

3.Spotify was covered in the media because ________.

A.AI music can be performed free of charge

B.its musicians might not be paid fairly

C.playlists of its music did not actually exist

D.AI software has replaced human musicians

4.The writing purpose of this passage is to ________.

A.draw deserved attention to AI-made artworks

B.warn against the immediate threat from Al art

C.support the use of Al software in art creation

D.solve misunderstandings about AI’s role in art