Let's say Hanna (for the sake of discussion) is a beautiful young and honest person who maintains a principle standard. That standard includes not exposed to objects or acts portraying offending and indecent suggestions such as nakedness in public. She strives to protect herself from exposure to this kind of display. Hanna maintains her standard is a valuable nature of her life.

Attending one of her monthly commitments in town, Hanna came across the town square and witnessed a cardboard cut-out photo of a naked person. On seeing the life size cut-out photo she felt sick and violated against her will. She hurriedly walked away, but it was too late; her privacy is breached by exposure to such public display without warning.

Hanna feels vulnerable and angry that she had been violated against her will.

One of the concept I have attempted to explain is Intuition. Under AI considerations, when the machine encounters a challenging task, it draws on its recorded data or memory for similar incidents in order to devise the most rational response.

At the same time, the rise of Political Correctness has popularised the claim there are no right or wrong answers; only different. This is supported by populous expectation that what is right is determined by popular opinions.

I'm not really sure where PC stands on this point, but I know popular opinions favour anti traditional rules and moral standards. Therefore popular opinions suggest anyone can be naked anywhere they feel like. This might go against PC in terms of children and indecency in public, but material freedom or liberalism according to PC is do how you feel.

So, what is the right thing to do under the circumstances?

It is expected of the machine to analyse its data and compare the present with recorded incidents to produce a rational response.

However, most statutes in the public square are symbolic of historic and artistic significance. The statute image and object is portraying something symbolic and not just a naked figure itself. The pure nakedness of the object or image therefore is not intended to insult or offend but symbolic.

Additional partial clothing, colours and shades of such images or objects may be interpreted by artistic skills. And the public display is symbolic presentation of aesthetic qualities for intellectual entertainment and cultural testimony in the public square as one such place for showing off such beauty.

The machine is now burdened with the task of resolving the issue for the offended person. The material resolution rests somewhere between aesthetic beauty and indecency. But the machine may not have any data on artistic beauty for abstracts are not readily reflective of the present. At the same time, the machine is restricted to analysing nakedness and offending, however difficult to conclude nakedness of a statute as offending.

So it looks like the machine would be stuck in time drawing a resolutions between nakedness in public and offending caused by a statute.

The real time resolution therefore rests between aesthetic art and nakedness as offending. But this resolution cannot be drawn by the machine because it has a limited perception beyond the physical object; it cannot see aesthetic qualities beyond the physical statute.

Surely there is a law about indecent objects and rude gestures in public for a real person because the reflective object is itself present. A self-portrait of a naked person can be anyone who is displaying no one else other than him/herself. The portrait draws attention to self-satisfaction; the indecent gesture portrays an offending image. And this is offending and indecent because the real person is not a symbolic figure beyond the physical. It is outright raw nakedness in public. He/she can be naked in his/her own private home away from the public and that's his/her business.

The machine can learn a distinction between nakedness of a statute to display aesthetic beauty, and nakedness of a real person in a selfie or self-portrait to display something wrong. Whatever reason behind the act only him/her knows. But the phrase suggests that clothes may not fit for such a person; there is something wrong with him/her.

The machine will now enter new data in its memory: a statute is a symbolic representation of aesthetic beauty for cultural testimony and intelligent satisfaction, but a person who has portrayed his/her nakedness in public other than for self-satisfaction suggests there is something wrong with him/her. Only that he/she doesn't know it yet.

While the machine may not have recorded data for a second layer, it has now associated statutes as works of art, but cut-out photo images of nude persons are indecent and offending.

For Hanna, she has to correct her perspective; she has to appreciate public art and beauty distinguished from personal selfish portraits. I know beauty is not always with the object but without the observer's skills is meaningless. In this case, Hanna's shift of perception will elevate her view of the material world.

She too can protest against person's raping of the public square that is soiling pure aesthetics of the arts. But as tradition goes, she can't tell anyone who don't know that he/she is naked in public.

Now the machine can know the right act is the display of objects including naked statutes in public for they are merely symbolic of aesthetic beauty. It is an artistic testimony to the town's culture. And the not so right answer is for anyone to exploit the public square for self-portrait without clothes is a defiant act against the city and its culture.

join the discussion