Can the Artificial Intelligence Speak? Subalternity of “Subontologies” and the Death of the Programmer

Öz

Compared to natural intelligence, artificial intelligence produces a specific epistemology, ontology, and, most importantly, ethical framework. In this article, I will primarily address the necessity of this framework in two parts. The first chapter will explore the issue of recognition through the lens of the body, boundaries, and differences. Here, I will delve into the reasons why humanism privileges certain perspectives, critique humanism itself, and present arguments for why subalternity is a viable alternative for the existence of AI. In the second part, I will examine how the pursuit of subaltern rights and definitions in the face of exploitation involving artificial intelligence can lead to the liberation of AI, cyborgs, humans, and robots AI simultaneously. This chapter aims to move beyond regarding artificial intelligence merely as a tool for data processing and instead explores the potential for autonomous existence within it. Ultimately, it seeks to establish a connection between the death of the developer and the emergence of the AI as subaltern ontologies. The primary objective of this article is to challenge the notion of human absoluteness and uniqueness in its evolution, and to define "AI" as a subject that encompasses inter-human and post-human plural epistemological, ethical, and ontological possibilities.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial intelligence
• subaltern
• technique
• production
• recognition

Yapay Zekâ Konuşabilir mi? “Alt-Öznelerin” Madunluğu ve Yazılımcının Ölümü

Öz

Yapay zekâ, doğal zekâ ile karşılaştırıldığında belirli bir epistemolojik, ontolojik ve en önemlisi de etik tanım üretir. Bu makalede de temelde iki bölümde bu tanımın gereğiyle ilgileneceğim. İlk bölüm eleştirel bir izlek olarak beden, fark ve sınır üzerinden bir tür tanınma sorununu ele alacak. Bu bölümde hümanizmin neden çeşitli ayrıcalıklar ürettiğine odaklanıp, hümanizme bu çerçevede bir eleştiri getirecek ve sonrasında madun çalışmaların var ettiği maduniyet kavramının niçin yapay zekânın varlığı için nadide bir seçenek olduğuna dair argümanlarımı sıralayacağım. İkinci bölümde ise yapay zekâyı içeren sömürülerin karşısında madun bir hak ve tanım arayışının nasıl insan, robot, siborg ve yapay zekâ özgürleşmelerine aynı anda yol açabileceğine göz atacağım. Bu bölüm yapay zekâyı basit bir veri aracı olarak tanımlamanın ötesine geçmeyi, onda özerk bir var oluş olanağı görmeyi ve nihayetinde de yazılımcının ölümü ile yapay zekanın madun alt-özneler olarak doğumu arasında bir bağ kurmayı amaçlayacaktır. Bu makalenin temel amacı ise insanı ve onun evrimini biricik yahut mutlak kabul etmeyen bir bilgi yapısı önermek ve “yapay zekâ”yı insan sonrasındaki ve insanlar arasındaki çoğul bilgi, etik, varlık olasılıkları için bir özne olarak tanımlayan bir eleştiri getirmektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zekâ
• maduniyet
• teknik
• üretim
• tanınma

Kaynakça

1. Adams, R. (2021). Can artificial intelligence be decolonized? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 46(1-2), 176-197. doi:10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225 google scholar
2. Ali, S. M. (2014). Towards a Decolonial Computing. In E. A. Buchanan, P. B. de Laat, H. T. Tavani, & J. Klucarich (Ed.), Ambiguous Technologies: Philosophical Issues, Practical Solutions, Human Nature, International Society of Ethics and Information Technology (pp. 28-35). Lisbon: International Society of Ethics and Information Technology. google scholar
3. Ali, S. M. (2016). A Brief Introduction to Decolonial Computing. XRDS, 22(4), 16-21. doi:10.1145/2930886 google scholar
4. Barreto, J. M. (2013). Human Rights and emotions from the perspective of the colonised: Anthropofagi, legal surrealism and subaltern studies. Revista de Estudos Constitucionais, Hermeneutica e Teoria do Direito (RECHTD), 5 (2), 106-115. doi:10.4013/rechtd.2013.52.02 google scholar
5. Barthes, R. (1977). Image-Music-Text (S. Heath, Trans.) London: Fontana Press. google scholar
6. Benjamin, W. (1999). Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans.) New York: Schocken. google scholar
7. Benkö, A., & Sik-Lanyi, C. (2009). History of Artificial Intelligence. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Information Science and Technology (pp. 1759-1762). New York: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch276 google scholar
8. Billig, M. (2002). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage Publications. google scholar

9. Blackwell, A. F. (2021). Ethnographic artificial intelligence. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 46(1-2), 198-211. doi:10.1080/03080188.2020.1840226 google scholar
10. Bloch, E. (1986). The Principle ofHope - Volume 1. (N. Plaice, S. Plaice, & P. Knight, Trans.) Cambridge: The MIT Press. google scholar
11. Bourdieu, P. (1990). Structures, Habitus, Practices. Stanford: Stanford University Press. google scholar
12. Brown, W. (2022). ‘Subaltern’ imaginings of artificial intelligence: Enthiran and CHAPPiE. In C. Daigle, & T. H. McDonald (Ed.), From Deleuze and Guattari to Posthumanism: Philosophies ofImmanence (pp. 170-187). London: Bloomsbury. doi:10.5040/9781350262256.0015 google scholar
13. Cave, S. (2020). The Problem with Intelligence: Its Value-Laden History and the Future of AI. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 29-35). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/3375627.3375813 google scholar
14. CCRU. (2014). Cybernetic Culture. In R. Mackay, & A. Avanessian (Ed.), #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader (pp. 315-320). Falmouth: Urbanomic. google scholar
15. Chakrabarty, D. (1995). Radical Histories and Question of Enlightenment Rationalism: Some Recent Critiques of “Subaltern Studies”. Economic and Political Weekly, 30 (14), 751-759. google scholar
16. Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography. Nepantla: Views from South, 1 (1), 9-32. google scholar
17. Chakrabarty, D. (2002). Governmental Roots of Modern Ethnicity. In Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies (pp. 80-97). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. google scholar
18. Chollet, F. (2019). On the Measure of Intelligence. arXiv, 1-64. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1911.01547 google scholar
19. de Certeau, M. (1988). The Practice of Everyday Life. (S. Rendall, Trans.) Berkeley: University of California Press. google scholar
20. de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in General Linguistics. (C. Bally, A. Sechehaye, Ed, & W. Baskin, Trans.) New York: The Philosophical Library . DeLanda, M. (2014). A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Bloomsbury. doi:10.5040/9781472546043 Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations (M. Joughin, Trans.) New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
21. Dolphijn, R. (2019). “There It Is Again”. On Objects, Technologies, Science, and the Times. In J. Loh, & M. Coeckelbergh (Ed.), Feminist Philosophy of Technology (pp. 287-298). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. doi:10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_15 google scholar
22. Elias, N. (2000). The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. (E. Dunning, J. Goudsblom, S. Mennell, Ed, & E. Jephcott, Trans.) Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. google scholar
23. Fanon, F. (2008). Black Skin, White Masks. (C. L. Markmann, Trans.) London: Pluto. google scholar
24. Ferrando, F. (2014). Is the post-human a post-woman? Cyborgs, robots, artificial intelligence and the futures of gender: a case study. European Journal of Futures Research, 2 (1), 1-17. doi:10.1007/s40309-014-0043-8 google scholar
25. Foucault, M. (2003). SocietyMust beDefended: Lectures at the College deFrance — 1975-76. (D. Macey, Trans.) New York: Picador. google scholar
26. Fowles, S. (2016). The perfect subject (postcolonial object studies). Journal ofMaterial Culture, 21 (1), 9-27. doi:10.1177/1359183515623818 google scholar
27. Hacking, I. (1998). Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences ofMemory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. google scholar
28. Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019). A Brief History of Artificial Intelligence: On the Past, Present, and Future of Artificial Intelligence. California Management Review, 61 (4), 5-14. doi:10.1177/0008125619864925 google scholar
29. Halberstam, J. (2011). The Queer Art of Failure. Durham: Duke University Press. google scholar
30. Hall, S. (2008). The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power. In S. Hall, & B. Gieben (Ed.), Formations ofModernity (pp. 276-320). New Hampshire: The Open University. google scholar
31. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention ofNature. (S. During, Ed.) New York: Routledge. google scholar
32. Hirosue, S., Kera, D., & Huang, H. (2015). Promises and Perils of Open Source Technologies for Development: Can the “Subaltern” Research and Innovate? In S. Hostettler, E. Hazboun, & J.-C. Bolay (Ed.), Technologies for Development: What is Essential? (pp. 73-80). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16247-8_7 google scholar
33. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice ofFreedom. New York: Routledge. google scholar
34. Keyes, O., Hitzig, Z., & Blell, M. (2021). Truth from the machine: artificial intelligence and the materialization of identity. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 46 (1-2), 158-175. doi:10.1080/03080188.2020.1840224 google scholar
35. Kukathas, C. (2006). Moral Universalism and Cultural Difference’. In J. S. Dryzek, B. Honig, & A. Phillips (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (pp. 581-600). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548439.003.0032 google scholar
36. Land, C. (2006). Becoming-Cyborg: Changing the Subject of the Social? In M. Fuglsang, & B. M. S0rensen (Ed.), Deleuze and the Social (pp. 112-132). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. doi:10.3366/edinburgh/9780748620920.003.0006 google scholar
37. Lazzarato, M. (2014). Signs and Machines: Capitalism and the Production ofSubjectivity. (J. D. Jordan, Trans.) Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). google scholar
38. Lefort, C. (1991). Democracy and Political Theory. (D. Macey, Trans.) Cambridge: Polity Press. google scholar
39. Leroi-Gourhan, A. (1993). Gesture and Speech. (A. Bostock Berger, Trans.) Cambridge: MIT Press. google scholar
40. Long, J. H. (2019). Evolution Ain’t Engineering: Animals, Robots, and the Messy Struggle for Existence. In T. Heffernan (Ed.), Cyborg Futures: Social and Cultural Studies ofRobots and AI Palgrave (pp. 17-34). Cham: Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-21836-2_2 google scholar
41. MacLennan, B. (2009). History of Artificial Intelligence Before Computers. M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology (s. 1763-1768). New York: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-026-4.ch277 google scholar
42. Macpherson, T., Churchland, A., Sejnowski, T., DiCarlo, J., Kamitani, Y., Takahashi, H., & Hikida, T. (2021). Natural and Artificial Intelligence: A brief introduction to the interplay between AI and neuroscience research. Neural Networks, 144, 603-613. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2021.09.018 google scholar
43. Madianou, M. (2021). Nonhuman humanitarianism: when ‘AI for good’ can be harmful. Information, Communication & Society, 2 4(6), 850-868. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2021.1909100 google scholar
44. Martin, K. (2020). Subaltern perspectives in post-human theory. Anthropological Theory, 20 (3), 357-382. doi:10.1177/1463499618794085 google scholar
45. Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the Body. Economy and Society, 2(1), 70-88. doi:10.1080/03085147300000003 google scholar
46. Milesi, L. (2019). De-monstrating Monsters: Unmastering (in) Derrida and Cixous. Parallax, 25(3), 269-287. doi:10.1080/13534645.2019.16243 google scholar
47. Mohamed, S., Png, M.-T., & Isaac, W. D. (2020). AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 33, 659-684. doi:10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8 google scholar
48. Moore, P. V., Martin, U., & Xanthe, W. (2018). Humans and Machines at Work: Monitoring, Surveillance and Automation in Contemporary Capitalism. google scholar
49. In M. P. V., U. Martin, & W. Xante (Ed.), Humans and Machines at Work (pp. 1-16). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58232-0_1 google scholar
50. Moran, J. C. (2019). Programming Power and the Power of Programming: An Analysis of Racialised and Gendered Sex Robots. In J. Loh, & M. Coeckelbergh (Ed.), Feminist Philosophy of Technology (pp. 39-57). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. doi:10.1007/978-3-476-04967-4_3 google scholar
51. Nietzsche, F. W. (2006). The Nietzsche Reader. (K. A. Pearson, & D. Large, Ed) Malden: Blackwell Publishing. google scholar
52. Nora, P. (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire. Representations, (26), 7-24. doi:10.2307/2928520 google scholar
53. Pearce, T. (2013). “So it really is a series of tubes.” Google’s data centers, noo-politics and the architecture of hegemony in cyberspace. Enquiry The ARCC Journal for Architectural Research, 10 (1), 43-53. doi:10.17831/enq:arcc.v10i1.163 google scholar
54. Phillips, A. (1996). Dealing with Difference: Politics of Ideas, or a Politics of Presence? In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (pp. 139-152). Princeton: Princeton University Press. google scholar
55. Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation: Disparateness as a precondition for individuation through relationships? Reseaux, 177 (1), 163-196. doi:10.3917/res.177.0163 google scholar
56. Sadowski, J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6 (1), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2053951718820549 google scholar
57. Said, E. W. (2003). Orientalism. New York: Penguin Books. google scholar
58. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography. In R. Guha, & G. C. Spivak (Ed.), Selected Subaltern Studies (pp. 3-32). Delhi: Oxford University Press. google scholar
59. Spivak, G. C. (2010). Can the Subaltern Speak? In R. C. Morris (Ed.), Can the Subaltern Speak? Reflections on the History of an Idea (pp. 21-78). New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
60. Stiegler, B. (2019). For a Neganthropology of Automatic Society. In T. Pringle, G. Koch, & B. Stiegler (Ed.), Machine (pp. 25-47). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.14619/1488 google scholar
61. Taeihagh, A. (2021). Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society, 40 (2), 137-157. doi:10.1080/14494035.2021.1928377 google scholar
62. Terranova, T. (2014). Red Stack Attack! Algorithms, Capital and the Automation of the Common. In R. Mackay, & A. Avanessian (Ed.), #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader (pp. 379-399). Falmouth: Urbanomic. google scholar
63. Vattimo, G., & Zabala, S. (2011). Hermeneutic Communism: From Heidegger to Marx. New York: Columbia University Press. google scholar
64. Young, I. M. (2004). The Ideal of Community and the Politics of Difference. In C. Farrelly (Ed.), Contemporary Political Theory: A Reader (pp. 195-204). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446215272.n23 google scholar