Yapay Zeka Çağında Bilimsel Etik ve İnsan Hakları İhlallerinin Diyalektik Analizi

Abstract

Bu makale, Yapay Zekanın basit bir veri işleme aracından bağımsız kararlar alabilen özerk bir sosyo-teknolojik ve potansiyel olarak trans hümanist varlığa dönüşümünde ulaşılan aşamayı ve bu dönüşümün algoritmik nedenlerle ortaya çıkardığı bilimsel etik ve insan hakları paradokslarını incelemektedir. Bilimsel ilerleme ve teknolojik vaatler gibi hedefleriyle birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, araştırma bulguları, akademik bütünlüğü ve güvenilirliği zedeleyen halüsinasyonlar ile tarihsel eşitsizlikleri daha da şiddetlendiren algoritmik ayrımcılık gibi sistemik risklerin, yapay zekanın meşruiyeti için temel kriz noktaları oluşturduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Makale, literatür taraması araştırma yöntemini kullanarak güncel verilere ulaşmayı amaçlamaktadır. Uluslararası kuruluşlar tarafından belirlenen düzenlemeler ışığında, yapay zekayı insan hakları ve bilimsel etikle uyumlu hale getirme çabalarını incelemekte ve bu paradoksları çözmek için stratejiler önermektedir. Sonuç olarak, bilginin üretildiği akademik süreçlerde yapay zekanın algoritmik riskleri göz önüne alındığında, yazarların ve hakemlerin etik kurallara uymaları esastır. Yapay zekanın hızlı ilerlemesi ve artan gücü, onu dünya çapında bilimsel etik ve insan haklarına odaklanan uluslararası norm ve değerlerle uyumlu hale getirme ihtiyacını vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• yapay zeka
• bilimsel etik
• insan hakları
• algoritmik ayrımcılık

Dialectical Analysis of Scientific Ethics and Human Rights Violations in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

This article examines the stage reached in the transformation of Artificial Intelligence from a simple data processing tool into an autonomous socio-technological and potentially transhumanist entity capable of making independent decisions, as well as the scientific ethical and human rights paradoxes that this transformation has brought about due to algorithmic reasons. When evaluated alongside its goals such as scientific progress and technological promise research findings reveal that systemic risks, including hallucinations that undermine academic integrity and reliability, as well as algorithmic discrimination that exacerbates historical inequalities, constitute fundamental crisis points for the legitimacy of artificial intelligence. The article aims to access current data using literature review research method. It examines efforts to align AI with human rights and scientific ethics in light of regulations established by international organizations and proposes strategies to resolve these paradoxes. In conclusion, given the algorithmic risks of AI in academic processes where knowledge is produced, it is essential for authors and reviewers to adhere to ethical guidelines. The rapid advancement and growing power of AI highlight the need to align it with international norms and values focused on scientific ethics and human rights worldwide.

Keywords

• artificial intelligence
• scientific ethics
• human rights
• algorithmic discrimination

References

1. Acemoğlu, D. (2026). AI is not improving productivity: Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu. MIT Sloan Management Review, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/audio/ai-is-not-improving-productivity-nobel-laureate-daron-acemoglu/ Accessed on Feb 24, 2026.
2. Ackoff, R. L. (1999). Ackoff's best (pp. 170172). John Wiley & Sons.
3. Akpınar, Ü. Z., Araç, M. & Doğru, E. (2025). The ethical imperative of artificial intelligence. Journal of Sustainable Education Studies, (S4), 5158. [Turkish] Anlı, Ö. F. (2011). Aristoteles ve yöntem: Tümevarım ve tümdengelim. Bilim ve Ütopya, 208. 6369.
4. Anthropic, (2026). Claude's new constitution. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-new-constitution Accessed on Jan 24, 2026.
5. Aristotle, (2022). The Nicomachean Ethics. (F.H. Peters, Trans.), Ryerson University. https://pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca/nicomacheanethics/ Accessed on May 15, 2026.
6. Bains, C. (2024). The legal doctrine that will be key to preventing AI discrimination. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-legal-doctrine-that-will-be-key-to-preventing-ai-discrimination/ Accessed on Oct 22, 2025
7. Baker, K. M. (1964). The early history of the term 'social science'. Annals of Science, 20(3), 211-226. [CrossRef]
8. Beheshti, A. & Kerridge, I. (2025). Understanding the artificial ıntelligence revolution and its ethical ımplications. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 22(3), 497505. [CrossRef]

9. Boyes, B. (2025). Case studies in the unethical and irresponsible use of AI. RealKM. https://realkm.com/2025/11/05/case-studies-in-the-unethical-and-irresponsible-use-of-ai/ Accessed on Nov 10, 2025.
10. Brenneis, A., Gehring, P. & Lamadé, A. (2024). Zwischen fachlichen standards und wilder innovation: Zur begutachtung von big data- und KI-Projekten in forschungs-ethikkommissionen. Ethik in der Medizin, 36, 473491. [German] [CrossRef]
11. Brenndoerfer, M. (2025). Constitutional AI: Principle-Based alignment through self-critique. https://mbrenndoerfer.com/writing/constitutional-ai-principle-based-alignment-through-self-critique Accessed on: Nov 17, 2025.
12. Cabanac G. (2024). Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literatüre. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02747-1#ref-CR1 Accessed on Sep 09, 2025. Cabiri, M. A. (2018). İbn Haldun'un düşüncesi asabiyet ve devlet (Çev: M. Çelik,). Mana Yayınları.
13. Cansen, E. (2025). Yaşamasaydım inanmazdım. yatırım finansman. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=oMobB3xFaEg&t=458s Accessed on Jan 11, 2026.
14. Center for Responsible Digitalization Office [ZEVEDI] (2022). Zur forschungsethischen begutachtung von KI- Forschungsprojekten. Handreichung zur unterstützung der arbeit von ethikkkommission. Technical University of Darmstadt, https://zevedi.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ZEVEDI_Handreichung-KI-Forschungsethik_2022.pdf Accessed on Oct 16, 2025.
15. Chandra, K., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Ragan-Kelley, J. & Tenenbaum J. B. (2026). Sycophantic chatbots cause delusional spiraling, even in, deal bayesians. Arxiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.19141 Cheong, I., Caliskan, A., & Kohno, T. (2025). Safeguarding human values: rethinking US law for generative AI's
16. societal impacts. AI And Ethics, 5(2), 1433-1459. [CrossRef] Chinoracky, R. & Stalmasekova, N. (2025). Ethical problems in the use of artificial intelligence by university educators. Education Sciences, 15(10), 1322. [CrossRef]
17. Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han D. & Jurafsky D. (2026). Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence. Science, 391(6792). [CrossRef] Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE], (2025). Handling an article produced by AI. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/handling-article-produced-ai Accessed on Jan 03, 2026.
18. Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE], (2023). Authorship and AI tools. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools (Accessed on Dec 30, 2025.
19. Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE], (2026). Editors suspect that reviewers are using artificial intelligence. https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/editors-suspect-reviewers-are-using-artificial-intelligence Accessed on Mar 02, 2026.
20. Cunningham, S. (2026). Claude code 27: Research and publishing are now two different things. Scott's Mixtape Substack. https://causalinf.substack.com/p/claude-code-27-research-and-publishing Accessed on Mar 03, 2026.
21. Çılğın, T. (2025). Dialectical analysis of problems created by technological developments in the labour market. Journal of Social Policy Conferences, (89), 106128. [CrossRef] Dahlgren Lindström, A., Methnani, L., Krause, L., Ericson, P., de Rituerto de Troya, Í. M., Coelho Mollo, D., & Dobbe, R. (2025). Helpful, harmless, honest? Sociotechnical limits of AI alignment and safety through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. Ethics and Information Technology, 27(2), 28. [CrossRef]
22. Dale, S. F. (2018). İbn Haldun ve İnsan Bilimi (Çev. A. Ay, & C. Coşkun). Say Yayınları.
23. Deutsche UNESCO (2021). Der Künstlichen Intelligenz: Weg weiser für die Gestaltung unserer Zukunft, Deutsche UNESCO-Kommission, https://www.unesco.de/assets/dokumente/Deutsche_UNESCO- Kommission/02_Publikationen/Publikation_Zusammenfassung_der_UNESCO- Empfehlung_zur_Ethik_der_K%C3%BCnstlichen_Intelligenz_%E2%80%93_Wegweiser_f%C3%BCr_die_Gestaltung_unserer_Zukunft.pdf Accessed on January 05, 2026.
24. Deutsche UNESCO (2023). Empfehlung zur ethik künstlicher ıntelligenz. DeutscherBundestag, https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/942696/993ee22a6d04a87778e06f3c66a49dc8/20-18-107a- Dt_Unesco.pdf Accessed on October 22, 2025. [German]
25. Devendorf, J. (2025). Avoiding Algorithmic Bias: Top 5 AI Liability Issues in Courts. Super Lawyers, https://www.superlawyers.com/resources/science-and-technology-law/avoiding-algorithmic-bias-top-5-ai- liability-issues-in-courts/ Accessed on December 05, 2025. Digital Cooperation Organization [DCO] (2025). Rights by Design Embedding Human Rights Principles on AI systems. https://dco.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Rights-by-Design-Embedding-Human-Rights- Principles-on-AI-systems.pdf Accessed on January 08, 2026.
26. Doko, E. (2026). Yapay zekâ bilgelik sahibi olabilir mi? Turing Kültür Sanat. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqb4P3rJ5q0 Accessed on March 02, 2026. Dreyfus, H. L. (1972). What computers can't do: A critique of artificial reason. Harper & Row Publishers.
27. European Commission [EC], (2024). AI and Ethics, Human Rights, Law and Educational Data. Briefing (report No. 6). European Digital Education Hub's squad on artificial intelligence in education. https://www.ai4t.eu/wp- content/uploads/2024/01/AI-squad-output_briefing-report-6.pdf Accessed on December 05, 2025. European Commission [EC], (2025). Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research, ERA Forum Stakeholders document. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/2b6cf7e5- 36ac-41cb-aab5-0d32050143dc_en?filename=ec_rtd_ai-guidelines.pdf Accessed on December 16, 2025.
28. European Parliament [EP], (2020). The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives, Panel for the Future of Science and Technology. European Parliamentary Research Service, Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/634452/EPRS_STU(2020)634452_EN.pdf Accessed on October 26, 2025.
29. Future of Life Institute, (2026). The EU Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/ Accessed on
30. February 04, 2026.
31. Gabriel, M. (2020). Wert und Mensch in der Ethik der. In KI, D. Zimmer (Ed.), Regulierung für algorithmen und künstliche intelligenz (pp. 2542). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Baden-Baden. [German] [CrossRef]
32. Gadamer, H-G. (1975). Truth and method. Continuum. https://web.mit.edu/kaclark/www/gadamer_truth_and_method.pdf Accessed on May 15, 2026.
33. Ghosh, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence (AI) and ethical concerns: a review and research agenda. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 255180. [CrossRef]
34. Giddens, A. (2013). Sosyoloji, Kırmızı Yayınları. [Turkish]
35. Graffius, S. M. (2026). Are AI hallucinations getting better or worse? We analyzed the data. ScottGraffius. https://www.scottgraffius.com/blog/files/ai-hallucinations-2026.html
36. Hackenburg, K., Tappin, B. M., Hewitt, L., Saunders, E., Black, S., Lin, H., Fist C., Margetts, H., Rand D. G. & Summerfield C. (2025). The levers of political persuasion with conversational artificial intelligence. Science, 390(6777), eaea3884. [CrossRef]
37. Haldun, İ. (2015). Mukaddime 1-2, (Çev: S. Uludağ). Dergâh Yayınları. Halverson, K., & Cannon, M. (2025). AI in scholarly publishing: Positives and pitfalls. The ASHA Leader. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/2025-1001-ai-scholarly-pubs-academia/full/ Accessed on November 07, 2025.
38. He, Y. & Bu, Y. (2025). Academic journals' AI policies fail to curb the surge in AI-assisted academic writing. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2512.06705 /
39. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press. INRA. AI. (2025). AI Hallucinations in Research: What They Are and How to Prevent Them, https://www.inra.ai/blog/ai-hallucinations Accessed on November 16, 2025.
40. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [IJMJE], (2026). Artificial intelligence AI assisted technology. Defining the role of authors and contributors. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four Accessed on March 04, 2026.
41. Joseph J. (2025). Algorithmic bias in public health AI: a silent threat to equity in low-resource settings. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1643180. [CrossRef]
42. Kalite Akademik Tercüme, (2026). Yapay zekâ kullanımı nedeniyle reddedilen ve yayından kaldırılan makaleler artıyor mu? https://kaliteakademik.com/yapay-zeka-kullanimi-nedeniyle-reddedilen-ve-yayindan-kaldirilan- makaleler-artiyor-mu.html Accessed on March 01, 2026.
43. Karaman, F. ve Eyüpoğlu, C. (2025). Artificial intelligence ethics in various fields: A review. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Teknoloji ve Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2). 87104. [CrossRef]
44. Küçükvardar, M., Aslan, A., Bayrakcı, S. (2020). Yapay zekâ ve etik üzerine bir araştırma. Atlas Journal, 6(36), 10651077. [CrossRef]
45. Lawvs. (2026). Legal ımplications of algorithmic bias in decision-making. Lawvs.com, https://lawvs.com/articles/legal-implications-of-algorithmic-bias-in-decision-making
46. Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating positivist and ınterpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342365. [CrossRef]
47. McCarthy, I. P., Hannigan, T. R. and Spicer, A. (2024). The risks of botshit. Havard Business Review, preprint. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.5172718
48. Martin-Luther-Universität (2026). KI und ethik. deutschdidaktik. Halle-Wittenberg https://deutschdidaktik.germanistik.uni-halle.de/6-ki-und-ethik/ Accessed on February 26, 2026.
49. Merton, R. (1973). The Normative Structure of Science. In N. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://sites.temple.edu/stsnetwork/files/2022/01/The-Normative-Structure-of-Science.pdf Mills, C. W. (2022). Sosyolojik Tahayyül. (Çev. Ö. Küçük), Hil Yayınları.
50. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4). https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf [CrossRef] National Institute of Standarts and Technology [NIST] (2022). Towards a standart for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence. NIST Special Publication 1270. [CrossRef]
51. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press. https://files.commons.gc.cuny.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/6105/files/2019/01/SAFIYA-NOBLE.pdf [CrossRef]
52. Nordquist, R. (2019). Holistic Grading (Composition). Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/holistic-grading-composition-1690838 Accessed on November 22, 2025.
53. Notman, N. (2025). AI tools combat paper mill fraud in scientific publishing as peer review system struggles. Royal Society of Chemistry. https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/ai-tools-tackle-paper-mill-fraud-overwhelming-peer-review/4022253.article Accessed on October 23, 2025.
54. Oellig, V. T. (2024). Künstlich intelligent, ethisch dumm. Amnesty International, https://www.amnesty.de/informieren/amnesty-journal/kuenstliche-intelligenz-menschenrechte-meredith- whittaker-kuenstlich-intelligent-ethisch-dumm Accessed on October 27, 2025.
55. Orr, D. (2022). The unintended consequences of algorithmic bias. Congressional Black Caucus Foundation [CBCF]. https://www.cbcfinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022_CBCF_CPAR_TheUnintendedConsequencesofAlgorithmicBias_Final.pdf Accessed on November 30, 2025. Özer M. (2024). Is Artificial Intelligence hallucinating? Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 35(4), 333-335. [CrossRef]
56. Pazzanese, C. (2020). Ethical concerns mount as AI takes bigger decision-making role. The Harvard Gazette, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/10/ethical-concerns-mount-as-ai-takes-bigger-decision- making-role/ Accessed on December 19, 2025.
57. Pham T. (2025). Ethical and legal considerations in healthcare AI: innovation and policy for safe and fair use. Royal Society Open Science, 12(5), 241873. [CrossRef]
58. Polanyi, K. (1947). Our obsolete market mentality. Commentary, 3(2), 109117. https://www.scribd.com/document/358169609/POLANYI-Karl-Our-Obsolete-Market-Mentality
59. Polanyi, K. (1977). The economistic fallacy. Review, 1(1), 918.
60. Quinn, E. (2025). Lead article: When machines discriminate: The rise of AI bias lawsuits. https://www.quinnemanuel.com/the-firm/publications/when-machines-discriminate-the-rise-of-ai-bias- lawsuits/ Accessed on January 09, 2026.
61. Radanliev, P. (2025). AI ethics: Integrating transparency, fairness, and privacy in AI development. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 39(1). [CrossRef]
62. Ramachandran, M. (2026). Case studies in AI ethics. In: Engineering ethics of AI by design. Springer. [CrossRef] / https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2909-4_5 Resnik, D. B. & Hosseini, M. (2025). The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: New guidance needed for a new tool. AI and Ethics, 5(2), 1499-1521. [CrossRef]
63. Romano, D. and Gaskins, C. (2025). The reality of AI hallucinations in 2025. Drainpipe.io. https://drainpipe.io/the- reality-of-ai-hallucinations-in-2025/ Accessed on December 29, 2025. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3),
64. Shao, A. (2025a). New sources of inaccuracy? A conceptual framework for studying AI hallucinations. Misinformation Review. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/new-sources-of-inaccuracy-a-conceptual-framework-for-studying-ai-hallucinations/ Accessed on January 23, 2026. [CrossRef]
65. Shao, A. (2025b). Beyond misinformation: a conceptual framework for studying AI hallucinations in (Science) communication. Cornell University, arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.13777 / [CrossRef]
66. Spicer A. (2024). Beware the 'botshit': why generative AI is such a real and imminent threat to the way we live. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/03/botshit-generative-ai-imminent-threat- democracy Accessed on January 30, 2026.
67. Spinoza, B. (2011). Etika. Çev. Hilmi Ziya Ülken. Dost Kitabevi Yayınları.
68. Syracuse University (2026). What is responsible AI: Principles, frameworks & future. Syracuse University School of Information Studies. https://ischool.syracuse.edu/what-is-responsible-ai/ Accessed on January 24, 2026. The Retraction Watch Database, (2026). Version: 1.0.8.0. ISSN 2692-465X. https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx? Accessed on February 04, 2026.
69. UN Global Compact Netzwerk Deutschland (2023). Künstliche intelligenz und menschenrechte. https://www.globalcompact.de/fileadmin/user_upload/kuenstliche_intelligenz_und_menschenrechte_Publikati on.pdf Accessed on November 04, 2025.
70. UNESCO (2023). Artificial Intelligence: UNESCO calls on all governments to implement global ethical framework without delay. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/artificial-intelligence-unesco-calls-all-governments- implement-global-ethical-framework-without
71. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2022). Ethics of artificial intelligence- AI. UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics Accessed on November 30, 2025.
72. US Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy (2024). Risk management profile for AI and human rights. US Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/risk-management-profile-for-ai-and-human-rights/ Accessed on December 16, 2025.
73. US Library of Congress (2026). What is disparate-ımpact discrimination? US Congress. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13057 Accessed on March 04, 2026.
74. Uplatz, (2025). The evolution of aı alignment: A comprehensive analysis of RLHF and constitutional AI in the pursuit of ethical and scalable systems. Uplatz Blog. https://uplatz.com/blog/the-evolution-of-ai-alignment-a- comprehensive-analysis-of-rlhf-and-constitutional-ai-in-the-pursuit-of-ethical-and-scalable-systems/ Accessed on October 27, 2025.
75. Uzaktan Eğitim Kapısı [UEK] (2026). Dijital okuryazarlık: Giriş. Dijital etik. https://uzaktanegitimkapisi.gov.tr/Egitimler/video?Uniq=C617B020-6529-40DC-90CE-74CB5B153426 Accessed on March 01, 2026.