Türkiye’deki Akademisyenlerin Yapay Zekâ (YZ) Uygulama ve Araçlarını Kullanımları Hakkında Bir Araştırma

Year 2024, , 128 - 144, 29.06.2024

Cihan Ünal , Hakan Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.33484/sinopfbd.1434171

Abstract

Bu makale, Türkiye'deki akademisyenlerin Yapay Zekâ (YZ) ürünlerini (uygulama ve araçlarını) kullanma alışkanlıklarını ve kullanım nedenlerini inceleyen bir araştırmanın sonuçlarını sunmaktadır. Veriler, geniş bir akademik topluluğun katılımıyla gerçekleştirilen bir anket aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Bulgular, YZ konusunda yeterli farkındalık olduğunu, YZ ürünlerinin kullanıldığını ancak YZ ürünlerinin yeterince yaygın ve çok yönlü bir şekilde kullanılmadığını göstermektedir. Araştırmayla YZ kullanımının yaygınlığı, etkisi ve gelecekteki araştırmalar için potansiyel yönleri, beraberinde getirdiği telif, patent ve mahremiyet ihlali gibi yeni sorunları matematiksel bulgularla ortaya konmuş ve sonuçları tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışma, YZ teknolojilerinin akademik çalışmalar ve öğretimdeki rolünün anlaşılması ve daha yaygın kullanımı için katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Yapay zekâ, sohbet botları, öğretim elemanı

A Survey on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications and Tools by Academics in Turkey

Abstract

This article presents the results of a study investigating the habits and reasons for use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) products (applications and tools) among academics in Turkey. Data were collected through a survey conducted with the participation of a broad academic community. The findings indicate that there is adequate awareness about AI and its usage, but AI products are not being used extensively and diversely enough. The study has demonstrated the prevalence, impact, and potential directions for future studies of AI utilization, along with new issues it raises such as copyright, patent infringement, and privacy violations, all underpinned by mathematical findings and the results have been discussed. This study aims to contribute to the understanding and wider use of AI technologies in academic research and teaching.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence, chatbots, academic staff

References

• Seaman, W. (2014). A multi-perspective approach to knowledge production. Kybernetes, 43(9/10), 1412-1424.
• Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2010). Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach. London.
• Lee, S. (2023). Book Review: Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/D418160873
• Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06565
• Bostrom, N., & Yudkowsky, E. (2018). The ethics of artificial intelligence. In Artificial intelligence safety and security (pp. 57-69). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
• Asaro, P. (2012). On banning autonomous weapon systems: human rights, automation, and the dehumanization of lethal decision-making. International review of the Red Cross, 94(886), 687-709. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000768
• Pagallo, U. (2013). The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media.
• Turner, J. (2018). Robot rules: Regulating artificial intelligence. Springer.
• Senders, S. (2008). Academic plagiarism and the limits of theft. Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the digital age, 195-207.
• Burk, D. L., & Lemley, M. A. (2003). Policy levers in patent law. Virginia Law Review, 1575-1696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3202360
• Samuelson, P. (2010). Legislative Alternatives to the Google Book Settlement. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 34, 697.
• Menell, P. S., Lemley, M. A., Merges, R. P., & Balganesh, S. (2023). Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, Vol. I: Perspectives, Trade Secrets and Patents. Faculty Books. 374.
• Chen, X., Xie, H., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). A multi-perspective study on artificial intelligence in education: Grants, conferences, journals, software tools, institutions, and researchers. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100005
• Dean, J. (2014). Big data, data mining, and machine learning: value creation for business leaders and practitioners. John Wiley & Sons.
• Abbott, R. (2016). I think, therefore I invent: creative computers and the future of patent law. Boston College Law Review, 57, 1079.
• Calo, R. (2011). The boundaries of privacy harm. Indiana Law Journal, 86, 1131.
• Schwartz, P. M., & Solove, D. J. (2014). Reconciling personal information in the United States and European Union. California Law Review, 102, 877.
• Taylor, L., Floridi, L., & Van der Sloot, B. (Eds.). (2016). Group privacy: New challenges of data Technologies (Vol. 126). Springer.
• Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2012). Big data for all: Privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Nortwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11, 239.
• McReynolds, E., Hubbard, S., Lau, T., Saraf, A., Cakmak, M., & Roesner, F. (2017, May). Toys that listen: A study of parents, children, and internet-connected toys. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 5197-5207). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025735
• Garvie, C. (2016). The perpetual line-up: Unregulated police face recognition in America. Georgetown Law, Center on Privacy & Technology.
• Hon, W. K., Millard, C., & Walden, I. (2012). Negotiating cloud contracts: Looking at clouds from both sides now. Stanford Technology Law Review, 16, 79.
• Koops, B. J. (2014). The trouble with European data protection law. International data privacy law, 4(4), 250-261. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipu023
• Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716679679. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
• Olejniczak, K., Borkowska-Waszak, S., Domaradzka-Widła, A., & Park, Y. (2020). Policy labs: the next frontier of policy design and evaluation?. Policy & Politics, 48(1), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420108
• Lahti, R. J. (2020). Making Accessibility Services Accessible Through Implementation of Information and Communication Technology. The Organizational Improvement Plan at Western University, 134.
• Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi (2023, Ağustos 30). Öğrenci İstatistikleri.
• Bayat, B. (2014). Uygulamalı sosyal bilim araştırmalarında ölçme, ölçekler ve “likert” ölçek kurma tekniği. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 1-24.