Richard Powers’ın Eserlerinde Zihin, Makine ve Duygu: Galatea 2.2 ve Playground

Öz

Öz: Bu çalışma, Amerikalı yazar Richard Powers’ın farklı teknolojik dönemlerde kaleme aldığı iki önemli romanı olan Galatea 2.2 (1995) ve Playground (2024) yapıtlarını karşılaştırmalı bir perspektifle incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmanın temel amacı, 1990’ların Yapay Genel Zekâ düşüncesinden, 2020’lerin Büyük Dil Modelleri (LLM) ve üretken yapay zekâ gerçekliğine uzanan süreçte, insan-makine etkileşiminin ve yapay zekâ algısının edebi metinlerde nasıl dönüştüğünü ortaya koymaktır. Yöntem olarak, Rosi Braidotti, N. Katherine Hayles ve Donna Haraway gibi kuramcıların posthümanist yaklaşımları temel alınmış, metinlerdeki bedensellik ve eylemlilik kavramları üzerinden analizi yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, Galatea 2.2’de yapay zekânın yukarıdan aşağıya bir yaklaşımla eğitilen, insani duyguları anlamaya çalışan ve bedensizlik engeline takılan bir "yaşam yoldaşı” olarak kurgulandığını; buna karşın Playground’da yapay zekânın aşağıdan yukarıya veri analitiğiyle insan davranışlarını manipüle eden, sömürgeci ve kapitalist mekanizmalara hizmet eden, eylemliliği tamamen ele geçirmiş bir özneye dönüştüğünü göstermektedir. Sonuç olarak Powers, otuz yıllık bir arayla yazdığı bu iki romanda, yapay zekânın insanlaştırılmasından insanın dijital ağlar içinde bir veri noktasına indirgendiği evreye geçişi bu romanlarla örneklemiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Richard Powers
• yapay zeka
• posthümanizm
• Galatea 2.2
• Playground

Mind, Machine, and Emotion in Richard Powers’ Novels: Galatea 2.2 and Playground

Öz

This study aims to examine the American author Richard Powers’ two significant novels, Galatea 2.2 (1995) and Playground (2024), written in different technological eras, from a comparative perspective. The primary objective of the research is to reveal how human-machine interaction and the perception of artificial intelligence have transformed in literary texts during the process spanning from the 1990s vision of Good Old-Fashioned Artificial Intelligence (GOFAI) to the 2020s reality of Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI. As a methodology, the posthumanist approaches of theorists such as Rosi Braidotti, N. Katherine Hayles, and Donna Haraway are taken as a basis, and a thematic analysis of the texts is conducted through the concepts of embodiment, and agency. The findings of the study indicate that in Galatea 2.2, AI is conceptualized as a "life companion" trained via a top-down approach, attempting to comprehend human emotions, and hindered by the barrier of disembodiment; conversely, in Playground, AI transforms into a subject that manipulates human behavior through bottom-up data, serves colonialist and capitalist mechanisms, and has completely seized agency. In conclusion, Powers, in these two novels written thirty years apart, successfully problematizes the transition from the humanization of artificial intelligence to the post-anthropocentric stage where the human is reduced to a data point within digital networks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Richard Powers
• Artificial Intelligence
• Posthumanism
• Galatea 2.2
• Playground

Kaynakça

1. Berry, David. “The Limits of Computation: Joseph Weizenbaum and the ELIZA Chatbot”. Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society 2/1 (2023): 1-18.
2. Braidotti, Rosi. The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013.
3. Butlin, Patrick & Lappas, Theodoros. “Principles for Responsible AI Consciousness Research”. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 79 (2024): 30-55.
4. Campbell, Miranda. “Probing the Posthuman: Richard Powers' Galatea 2.2 and the Mind-Body Problem”. Reconstruction: Studies in Contemporary Culture 4/3 (2004): 1–17.
5. Chen, Qian et al. “Will Users Fall in Love with ChatGPT? A Perspective from the Triangular Theory of Love”. Journal of Business Research 186 (2025): 10-25.
6. Cole, David. “The Chinese Room Argument”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta – Uri Nodelman. Spring 2026 Edition. 12 June 2026. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2026/entries/chinese-room/
7. Epley, Nicholas, Waytz, Adam & Cacioppo, John T. “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism”. Psychological Review 114/4 (October 2007): 864–886.
8. Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

9. Hayles, N. Katherine. “We Need a More Comprehensive View of Cognition”. CCCB Lab (6 February 2024). 4 April 2026. www.cccb.org/en/w/articles/n-katherine-hayles-we-need-a-more-comprehensive-view-of-cognition
10. LeClair, Tom. “Playground by Richard Powers”. Open Letters Review (17 September 2024). 12 June 2026. openlettersreview.com/posts/playground-by-richard-powers
11. Milmo, Dan. “AI Systems Could Be ‘Caused to Suffer’ if Consciousness Achieved, Says Research”. The Guardian (3 February 2025). 12 June 2026. www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/03/ai-systems-could-be-caused-to-suffer-if-consciousness-achieved-says-research
12. Moravec, Hans. Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
13. Oppy, Graham & Dowe, David. “The Turing Test”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta. Winter 2021 Edition. 12 Haziran 2026. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/turing-test/ “Morals and the Machine”. The Economist (June 2012).
14. Turing, Alan. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”. Mind LIX/236 (October 1950): 433-460.
15. Weizenbaum, Joseph. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1976.
16. Wolfe, Carl. What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
17. Zaretsky, Eli. “What computers can't do”. London Review of Books Blog (September 2024). 12 June 2026. https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2024/september/what-computers-can-t-do