The Ethics of Code: Ethical Agency, Authority, and Social Action in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Artificial intelligence technologies are at the center of not only technical ad- vances but also ethical and social transformations. This study examines the relationships of algorithmic decision-making processes on social structure, normative order and authority relations, based on philosophical discussions on whether artificial intelligence can be an ethical agent. Ethical responsibility should not be considered only as an obligation of an individual will. The area of responsibility is increasingly becoming an output of the production methods and data structures of technical systems. In order to better understand this ab- stract area and to approach the subject from different levels, theoretical analy- sis, critical discourse analysis and comparative ethical modeling methods were preferred in the study. In this way, both the philosophical boundaries of the ethical concept and its reflections in practice were evaluated in a multidimen- sional manner. Thus, the idea that artificial intelligence systems are not limited to being decision support tools is taken to the center. It is also revealed that this technology has transformed into normative actors that produce, classify and direct behaviors. The findings show that ethical norms are not just abstract principles but are embedded in technical architecture and directly reflected in the functioning of the system. The communication tension between algorithms and basic ethical principles such as transparency, subjectivity and contextual- ity is not a technical design problem. The study also evaluates this issue as a structural issue that necessitates the rethinking of ethical responsibility. Within the framework of these contexts, it has been concluded that the ethics of arti- ficial intelligence is intertwined with managerial and design responsibilities for practice rather than a theoretical discussion.

Keywords

• artificial intelligence
• ethical responsibility
• algorithmic governance
• normative systems
• media

Kodun Ahlakı: Yapay Zekâda Etik Faillik, Otorite ve Toplumsal Eylem Üzerine

Abstract

Yapay zekâ teknolojileri, yalnızca teknik ilerlemelerin değil, aynı zamanda etik ve toplumsal dönüşümlerin de merkezine yerleşmiş durumdadır. Bu çalışma, yapay zekânın etik fail olup olamayacağına ilişkin felsefi tartışmaları temel alarak, algoritmik karar alma süreçlerinin toplumsal yapı, normatif düzen ve otorite ilişkileri üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Etik sorumluluk, yalnızca bireysel bir iradenin değil, giderek daha fazla teknik sistemlerin üretim biçimlerinin ve veri yapılandırmalarının bir çıktısı haline gelmektedir. Çalışmada, konuya farklı düzlemlerden yaklaşabilmek amacıyla kuramsal çözümleme, eleştirel söylem analizi ve karşılaştırmalı etik modelleme yöntemleri tercih edilmiştir; bu sayede hem etik kavramın felsefi sınırları hem de uygulamadaki yansımaları çok boyutlu biçimde değerlendirilmiştir. Yapay zekâ sistemlerinin yalnızca karar destek araçları olmadığı; aynı zamanda değer üreten, sınıflandıran ve davranışları yönlendiren normatif aktörlere dönüştüğü ortaya konmuştur. Bulgular, etik normların soyut ilkelerden ibaret olmadığını, teknik mimarilere gömülerek sistemin doğrudan işleyişini etkilediğini göstermektedir. Algoritmaların şeffaflık, öznellik ve bağlamsallık gibi temel etik ilkelerle kurduğu gerilim, yalnızca teknik bir tasarım sorunu değil; aynı zamanda etik sorumluluğun yeniden düşünülmesini zorunlu kılan yapısal bir mesele olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu bağlamda, yapay zekâ etiğinin sadece teorik bir tartışma değil, aynı zamanda uygulamaya yönelik yönetimsel ve tasarımsal sorumluluklarla iç içe geçtiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Yapay zekâ
• Etik sorumluluk
• Algoritmik karar süreçleri
• Norm üretimi
• Medya.

References

1. Angwin, J. L. (2022). Machine bias. In K. Martin (Ed.), Ethics of data and analytics. (pp. 254–265). CRC Press.
2. Arendt, H. (1961). Between past and future. The Viking Press.
3. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology. Polity Press.
4. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press.
5. Bryson, J. J. (2018). Patiency is not a virtue: The design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9448-6.
6. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press.
7. Dai, X. (2018). Toward a reputation state: The social credit system project of China. Contemporary Politics, 24(2), 154–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2017.1417120
8. Danaher, J. (2016). Robots, law and the retribution gap. Ethics and Information Technology, 18, 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9403-3

9. Edmonds, D. (2013). Would you kill the fat man? Princeton University Press.
10. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
11. Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010018611096.
12. Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
13. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
14. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. Pantheon Books.
15. Göktaş, P. (2023, September 29). Sağlık sektöründe yapay zeka: Etik ve hukuki düzenlemeler. Harvard Business Review Türkiye https://hbrturkiye.com/blog/saglik-sektorunde-yapay-zeka-etik-ve-hukuki-duzenlemeler
16. Gunkel, D. J. (2012). The machine question. MIT Press.
17. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2013). Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture, 22(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2013.786990
18. Kant, I. (2022). Ahlakın metafiziği hukuk öğretisi (çev. A. Heper). Fol Kitap.
19. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata Ethics and Information Technology, 6, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1.
20. Moor, J. H. (2006). Importance and difficulty of machine ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.76
21. Nissenbaum, H. (2009). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
22. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction. Crown Books.
23. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
24. Picard, R. W. (2000). Affective computing. MIT Press.
25. Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation.
26. Réseaux, 177 (1), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.3917/res.177.0163.
27. Vallor, S. (2017). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.
28. Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2009). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press.
29. Zuboff, S. (2018). The age of surveillance capitalism. The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: PublicAffairs.