YAPAY ZEKALI ROBOTLARDA ETİK: AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NDE GÜNCEL DURUM DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

Abstract

Robot teknolojileri ile yapay zekâ teknolojisinin birleşimi neticesinde, her iki teknolojinin de sınırlarını aşan bambaşka teknolojik varlıklar ortaya çıkmıştır. Akıllı robotlar olarak da anılan yapay zekalı bu robotlar, insan zekasını taklit ederek kendilerine verilen görevleri yerine getirebilme, kararlar alarak çıkarımlarda bulunabilme, bu çıkarım ve deneyimlerden öğrenerek kendi kendilerini geliştirebilme yetenekleri sayesinde otonomilerini de artırabilmektedirler. Otonomileri artan bu robotlar, günümüzde askeri alandan sağlık uygulamalarına, kişisel bakım hizmetlerinden kamu hizmetine kadar pek çok farklı şekilde kullanılmaya başlanmışlardır. Kullanım alanlarındaki bu artış sebebiyle, yapay zekalı robotların insanlarla temas sıklıkları ve insanlar üzerindeki sosyal etkileri de günden güne artmakta, ‘akıllı robotların karar ve eylemleri nasıl kontrol altına alınabilir’ sorusu gündeme gelmektedir. İnsan zekasını taklit ederek öğrenebilen bu robotların, kendi kararlarını alıp uygulamaya koyarak otonomilerini her geçen gün artırmaları durumda temel hak ve özgürlüklerin, mahremiyetin, bireysel özerkliğin korunması nasıl başarılacaktır? Bu robotların işlem ve eylemlerinden kaynaklanabilecek zararlar nasıl giderilecek? Yapay zekalı robotların otonomilerinin artmasıyla üzerlerindeki insan kontrolü zayıflayarak zamanla yok mu olacak? Robotlar kontrolden çıkacaklar mı? Pek çok soruyu peş peşe sıralayabildiğimiz bu noktada, yapay zekalı robotlar üzerinde insan kontrolü sağlanabilmesi için yapay zekalı robot etiği ilke, değer ve standartlarının belirlenmesinin önemi karşımıza çıkmaktadır.

Keywords

• yapay zeka
• yapay zekalı teknolojiler
• yapay zeka etiği
• robot hukuku
• robot etiği

ETHICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-POWERED ROBOTS: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Abstract

The combination of robotics and artificial intelligence has resulted in entirely new technological entities that transcend the boundaries of both. These AI-powered robots, also known as smart robots, are able to increase their autonomy by mimicking human intelligence to perform assigned tasks, make inferences and decisions, and learn from their experiences to improve themselves. These increasingly autonomous robots are now being used in many different fields, from the military and healthcare to personal care and public services. As their areas of use increase, the frequency of their contact with humans and their psycho-social impact on humans also increases day by day, raising the question of how the decisions and actions of these AI robots can be controlled within ethical boundaries. As robots capable of learning through the imitation of human intelligence continue to enhance their autonomy by independently making and executing decisions, concerns arise regarding the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, privacy, and individual autonomy. How can the harm that may arise from the actions of these robots be remedied? Will human control over AI robots weaken and eventually disappear as their autonomy increases? Could robots ultimately operate beyond human control? In light of these pressing questions, the importance of establishing ethical principles, values, and standards for AI-powered robots within the framework of Union law becomes evident in order to ensure meaningful human oversight and control over such technologies.

Keywords

• artificial intelligence
• artificial intelligence technologies
• artificial intelligence ethics
• robot law
• robot ethics

References

1. Akbaba, A. İ. ve Gündoğdu, Ç. (2021). Bir servis robotu olarak telepresence (uzabulunum) robotlar. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(2), 649-667. https://doi.org/10.47097/piar.1026348
2. Akkurt, S. S. (2019). Avrupa Parlamentosu’nun Robotik Hakkında Medeni Hukuk Kurallarına İlişkin 16 Şubat 2017 Tarihli Tavsiye Kararı’nın Genel Bir Tahlili ve Yasalaştırma Öngörüleri. Legal Hukuk Dergisi, 17(198), 2537-2556.
3. Aksoy, H. (2021). Yapay zekalı varlıklar ve ceza hukuku. International Journal of Economics, Politics, Humanities & Social Science, 4(1), 10-27. https://izlik.org/JA32MZ84EJ
4. Albus, J. S. ve Evans J. M., Jr. (1976). Robot systems. Scientific American, 234(2), 76-87. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0276-76
5. Allaban, A. A., Wang, M. ve Pandır, T. (2020). A systematic review of robotics research in support of in-home care for older adults. Information, 11(2), Article 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020075
6. Anderson, S. L. (2008). Asimov’s three laws of robotics and machine metaethics. AI & Society, 22, 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0094-5
7. Anderson, M. ve Anderson, S. L. (2010). Robot be good. Scientific American, 303(4), 72-77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26002215
8. Atkinson, R. (2016). EU digital single market: Pursuing contradictory goals? G. Xavier-Bender (Ed.), Seeing the forest for the trees: Why the digital single market matters for transatlantic relations içinde (ss. 5-14). German Marshall Fund of the United States. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep18949.4

9. Barry, M. (2011). Documenting the Genie’s escape: Robotic surgery. Medical Care, 49(4), 340-342. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182125d88
10. Başkaya, F. ve Karacan, H. (2022). Yapay zeka tabanlı sistemlerin kişisel veri mahremiyeti üzerine etkisi: Sohbet robotları üzerine inceleme. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 15(4), 481-491. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.1053803
11. Belk, R. (2020). Ethical issues in service robotics and artificial intelligence. The Service Industries Journal, 41(13–14), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2020.1727892
12. Bini, S. A. (2018). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep learning, and cognitive computing: What do these terms mean and how will they impact health care? The Journal of Arthroplasty, 33, 2358-2361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.067
13. Bozkurt-Yüksel, A. E., (2017). Robot Hukuku. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, 7(29), 85-112. https://izlik.org/JA73MW36UA
14. Bruin, R. de. (2016). Autonomous intelligent cars on the European intersection of liability and privacy: Regulatory challenges and the road ahead. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(3), 485-501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00006036
15. Burri, T. (2016). The politics of robot autonomy, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7(2), 341-360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005766
16. Burwell, F. G., ve Propp, K. (2020). The European Union and the search for digital sovereignty: Building “Fortress Europe” or preparing for a new world? Atlantic Council. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26697
17. Caşın, M. H., Al, D. ve Başkır, N. D. (2021). Yapay zeka ve robotların eylemlerinden kaynaklanan cezai sorumluluk sorunu. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 79(1), 1-73. https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.931227
18. Council of the European Union (2024, May 21). Artificial intelligence (AI) act: Council gives final green light to the first worldwide rules on AI, (press release 409/24). https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2024/05/21/artificial-intelligence-ai-act-council-gives-final-green-light-to-the-first-worldwide-rules-on-ai/.
19. Çimen Bulut, İ., (2020). Avrupa Birliği genel veri koruma tüzüğü kapsamında getirilen yeni teknik ve yaptırım mekanizmaları. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(2), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.758041
20. Çimen Bulut, İ. (2022). Avrupa Birliği Hukukunda Kişisel Veriler ve Dijital Ekonomi. Detay Yayıncılık.
21. Dautenhahn, K. (2007). Socially intelligent robots: Dimensions of human-robot interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 679-704. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2004
22. Díaz-Boladeras, M. (2023). Bond Formation with Pet-Robots: An Integrative Approach, Current Psychology, 42, 2591-2608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03792-7
23. Erdoğan, M., (2017). Sıfırıncı yasa. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19(3), 746-759. https://izlik.org/JA52CF78WF
24. Etemad-Sajadi, R., Soussan, A. ve Schöpfer, T. (2022). How ethical issues raised by human-robot interaction can impact the intention to use the robot? International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 1103-1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00857-8
25. Etzioni, A. ve Etzioni, O. (2017). Should artificial intelligence be regulated? Issues in Science and Technology, 33(4), 32-36. https://issues.org/perspective-should-artificial-intelligence-be-regulated/
26. EURON (European Robotics Research Network) (2006). Roboethics roadmap. http://www.roboethics.org/atelier2006/docs/ROBOETHICS%20ROADMAP%20Rel2.1.1.pdf
27. European Commission (2019a). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI (by Independent High-level Expert Group on artificial intelligence). https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/ai-alliance-consultation.1.html
28. European Commission (2019b). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019DC0640
29. European Commission (2020a). The assessment list for trustworthy artificial intelligence (ALTAI) for self-assessment, (Independent High-level Expert Group on artificial intelligence). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/73552fcd-f7c2-11ea-991b-01aa75ed71a1
30. European Commission (2020b). White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: A European approach to excellence and trust. https://commission.europa.eu/publications/white-paper-artificial-intelligence-european-approach-excellence-and-trust_en
31. European Commission (2024). Commission decision of 24.01.2024 establishing the European Artificial Intelligence Office ((C2024) 390 final). https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/commission-decision-establishing-european-ai-office
32. European Parliament (2016). Ethical aspects of cyber-physical systems, scientific foresight study (PE 563.501, ISBN 978-92-823-9428-1). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/563501/EPRS_STU%282016%29563501_EN.pdf
33. European Parliament (2017a). European Parliament. (2017a). Resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on civil law rules on robotics. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0051_EN.html#title1
34. European Parliament (2017b). At a glance, civil law rules on robotics (Plenary briefing). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2017/599250/EPRS_ATA(2017)599250_EN.pdf
35. European Parliament. (2020). Framework of ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, robotics and related technologies (European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2020, 2020/2012(INL)). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0275_EN.html#title1
36. European Union. (2018). Civil law rules on robotics. Official Journal of the European Union, C 252, 239–244. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2018:252:TOC
37. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689
38. Fosch Villaronga, Eduard, (2017). Towards a legal and ethical framework for personal care robots. Analysis of person carrier, physical assistant and mobile servant robots, [Doktora tezi, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona]. https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/457739/efv1de1.pdf
39. Goher, K.M., Mansouri, N. ve Fadlallah, S.O. Assessment of personal care and medical robots from older adults’ perspective. Robotics and Biomimetics, 4, 5 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40638-017-0061-7
40. Görentaş, M. B. (2025). Güney Kore Yapay Zeka Yasası’nın Analizi ve Türk Hukukuna Bir Model olarak Değerlendirilmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7, 413-441. https://doi.org/10.59399/cuhad.1658493
41. Gürgüze, G. ve Türkoğlu, İ. (2019). Robot sistemlerinde kullanılan algoritmalar. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi, 8(1), 17-31. https://izlik.org/JA82JP53BH
42. Hacker, P. (2023). The European AI liability directives-Critique of a half-hearted approach and lessons for the future. Computer Law and Security Review, 51(105871), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105871
43. Horowitz, M. C., Kahn, L. ve Mahoney C., (2020). The future of military applications of artificial intelligence: A role for confidence-building measures? Orbis, 64(4), 528-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orbis.2020.08.003
44. Hosseini, S. E. ve Goher, K. (2017). Personel care robots for older adults: An overview. Asian Social Science, 13(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n1p11
45. Hunt, V. Daniel, (1985). Introduction to smart robots. In V.D. Hunt (Ed.), Smart robots. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2533-8_1
46. Kanda, T., Nishio, S., Ishiguro, H., ve Hagita, N. (2009). Interactive humanoid robots and androids in children’s lives. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 12–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.19.1.0012
47. Kaya, E. (2017). Avrupa Birliği Vatandaşlığı ve Eğitimi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 21(2), 407-433. https://izlik.org/JA36CU55CH
48. Kurt, D. ve Bozoklu, Ü. (2019). Robot ekonomisinin yükselişi. Sosyal Bilimler Metinleri, 2019(1), 25-47. https://izlik.org/JA76AE46LR
49. Lang, J., Schott, R. M., & van Munster, R. (2018). States disagree on definition of lethal autonomous weapons: Failure to define killer robots means failure to regulate them. Danish Institute for International Studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17676
50. Lee, Chung Min, (2024). Next Frontier: South Korea as an AI Innovation Hub. In The Future of K-Power: What South Korea Must Do After Peaking (pp. 22–25). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep62655.6.
51. Lin, P., Abney, K., ve Bekey, G. (2011). Robot ethics: Mapping the issues for a mechanized world. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 942–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.026
52. Lloyd, David M., (2011). Robots don’t perform surgery, surgens do. British Medical Journal, 343 d6830. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6830
53. McNeill, A. ve Stewart, G.D. (2011). Yes to be careful introduction of robot assisted surgery. BMJ, 343 d7215. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7215
54. Mies, G. (2010). Military robots of the present and the future. AARMS, 9(1), 125-137.
55. Miller, G. (2012). Drone wars. Science, 336(6083), 842-843. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41584845
56. Nevejans, N. (2016). European civil law rules in robotics (Study for the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee, PE 571.379). European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571379/IPOL_STU(2016)571379_EN.pdf
57. New York Post, (2023, 9 Ağustos). AI pets could replace dogs and cats, but experts warns that ‘long term effects’ are unknown. https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/ai-pets-could-replace-dogs-and-cats-but-expert-warns-that-long-term-effects-are-unknown/
58. NTV, (2025, 5 Ağustos). Japonya’da robot hayvan çılgınlığı: 4 milyon kişiliği var. https://www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/japonyada-robot-hayvan-cilginligi-4-milyon-kisiligi-var,rpGOrkfTtk-BgCJrxy_0Rw#
59. Oborn, E., Barrett, M., ve Darzi, A. (2011). Robots and service innovation in health care. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 16(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2010.010001
60. Official Journal of the European Union. (2023). European declaration on digital rights and principles for the digital decade (OJ C 23, 1–7). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOC_2023_023_R_0001
61. Okano-Heijmans, M. (2023). Europe’s path towards digital and technological autonomy (Open strategic autonomy: The digital dimension). Clingendael Institute. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep46866. O’Sullivan, S., Nevejans, N., Allen, C., Blyth, A., Leonard, S., Pagallo, U., Holzinger, K., Holzinger, A., Sajid, M. I., &
62. Ashrafian, H. (2019). Legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks for development of standards in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robotic surgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 15, e1968. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1968
63. Pirim, H. (2006). Yapay zeka, Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 1(1), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.19168/jyu.72783
64. Portelli, A. (1980). The three laws of robotics: Laws of the text, laws of production, Laws of Society (Les Trois Lois de la Robotique: lois du texte, lois de la production, lois de la société). Science Fiction Studies, 7(2), 150-156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4239326
65. Renda, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence: Towards a pan-European strategy. In C. Hobbs (Ed.), Europe’s digital sovereignty: From rulemaker to superpower in the age of US-China rivalry (pp. 54–62). European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/publication/europe_digital_sovereignty_rulemaker_superpower_age_us_china_rivalry/#Artificial_intelligence:_Towards_a_pan-European_strategy
66. Sabanovic, S. (2014). Inventing Japan’s ‘robotics culture’: the repeated assembly of science, technology, and culture in social robotics. Social Studies of Science, 44(3), 342-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713509704
67. Saetra, H. S. (2020). The foundations of a policy for the use of social robots in care. Technology in Society, 63(101383). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101383
68. Sharkey, N. (2008). The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science. 322(5909), 1800-1801. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20177061
69. Sinha, C.K., Haddad, M., (2008). Robot-assisted surgery in children: current status. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 1, 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-007-0054-6.
70. Smuha, N. A. (2021). From a ‘Race to AI’ to a ‘Race to AI Regulation’: Regulatory Competition for Artificial Intelligence. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1), 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3501410
71. Sümer, S. Y. (2021). Ceza yargılamasının geleceği: Robot hakim. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(2), 1543-1591. https://doi.org/10.33717/deuhfd.998255
72. Turing, A.M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433.
73. Uzun, T. (2020). Yapay zeka ve sağlık uygulamaları. İzmir Kâtip Çelebi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(1), 80-92. https://izlik.org/JA68LR92EJ
74. Walter, N.J. (2020). You may kiss the AI. Jurimetrics, 60(3), 353-380. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2701002
75. Wang, Y. M., Matook, S., ve Dennis, A. R. (2024). Unintended consequences of humanoid service robots: A case study of public service organizations. Journal of Business Research, 174, 114568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114509
76. Webb, M. (1983). The robots are here! The robots are here! Design Quarterly, (121), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/4091102
77. Westerlund, M. (2020). An ethical framework for smart robots. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10(1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1312