Eğitimde yapay zekâ kullanımı: Etik sorunlar ve çözümler

Öz

Yapay Zekâ (YZ), insan zekâsının ve bilişsel işlevlerinin taklit edilmesi amacıyla tasarlanmış ve programlanmış bilgisayar sistemleri olarak tanımlanmaktadır. YZ teknolojilerinde yaşanan gelişmeler birçok alanda değişim ve dönüşümü beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu alanlardan birisi de eğitimdir. Nitekim eğitim sistemleri, YZ teknolojilerindeki gelişmelere bağlı olarak sürekli yenilenmekte ve bu dönüşümleri takip ederek değişmekte ve gelişmektedir. Dahası eğitimciler, araştırmacılar ve politika yapıcılar, YZ'nın öğrenme ortamlarını dönüştürme, öğretim metodolojilerini geliştirme ve eğitim deneyimlerini kişiselleştirme potansiyeli nedeniyle bu alana büyük ilgi göstermektedirler. YZ’nın eğitimde kullanımı, birçok potansiyel fayda sunmasına rağmen, önemli etik endişeleri de beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu bağlamda makalede, eğitimde YZ kullanımına yönelik etik kaygılar ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada öncelikle YZ'nın tanımı ve temel özellikleri sunulmuştur. Daha sonra, YZ'nın eğitimde kullanımıyla ortaya çıkan etik sorunlar ele alınmıştır. Bu sorunlar arasında gizlilik, önyargı, ayrımcılık, güvenlik, hesap verebilirlik, şeffaflık, silahlanma, dijital uçurum, teknoloji bağımlılığı ve fikri mülkiyet gibi konular yer almaktadır. Son olarak eğitimde YZ kullanımına yönelik etik bağlamda yapılan yasal düzenlemelere yer verilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda, YZ'nın eğitimde sorumlu ve etik bir şekilde kullanılmasının önemi vurgulanmıştır. Bu çerçevede, eğitimciler, araştırmacılar ve politika yapıcıların ortak bir çabayla hareket etmesi ve etik ilkeler doğrultusunda YZ politikaları geliştirmesi gerektiği belirtilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay zekâ
• eğitim
• etik.

Using artificial intelligence in education: Ethical issues and solutions

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined as computer systems designed and programmed to imitate human intelligence and cognitive functions. Developments in AI technologies have brought about change and transformation in many fields. One of these areas is education. As a matter of fact, education systems are constantly renewed depending on the developments in AI technologies, and they change and develop by following these transformations. Moreover, educators, researchers and policy makers are showing great interest in this field due to the potential of AI to transform learning environments, improve teaching methodologies and personalize educational experiences. Although the use of AI in education offers many potential benefits, it also raises important ethical concerns. In this context, this article addresses ethical concerns about the use of AI in education. Survey model, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. Firstly, the definition and basic features of AI are presented. Then, ethical issues arising from the use of AI in education are discussed. These issues include privacy, prejudice, discrimination, security, accountability, transparency, armament, digital divide, technology addiction and intellectual property. Finally, legal arrangements made in the ethical context for the use of AI in education are included. As a result of the research, the importance of using AI in education in a responsible and ethical manner was emphasized. In this framework, it was stated that educators, researchers and policy makers should act in a joint effort and develop AI policies in line with ethical principles.

Keywords

• Artificial intelligence
• education
• ethics.

Kaynakça

1. Aiken, R., & Epstein, R. (2000). Ethical guidelines for AI in education: Starting a conversation. Int. J. Artif. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 163-176.
2. Aktay, S., Gök, S., & Uzunoğlu, D. (2023). ChatGPT in education. Türk Akademik Yayınlar Dergisi, 7(2), 378-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.29329/tayjournal.2023.543.03
3. Allen, C., Wallach W., & Smit, I. (2006). Why machine ethics?. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.83
4. Anıl Keskin, D., & Gözenman, S. (2019). Hile riski açısından sosyal mühendislik. TIDE Academia Research, 1(2), 281-306.
5. Arslan, K. (2020). Eğitimde yapay zeka ve uygulamaları. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 71-88.
6. Aruğaslan, E., & Çivril, H. (2021). Türkiye’de eğitim alanında yapılan veri madenciliği ve yapay zekâ çalışmaları. Uluslararası Teknolojik Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 81-89.
7. Aşık F., Yıldız, A., Kılınç, S., Aytekin, N., Adalı, R., & Kurnaz, K. (2023). Yapay zekânın eğitime etkileri. International Journal of Social Humanities Siıences Research, 10(98), 2100-2107. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8307107
8. Audi, R. (2015). The Cambridge dictionary of philosoph (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057509

9. Ayala-Pazmiño , M. (2023). Inteligencia artificial en la educación: Explorando los beneficios y riesgos potenciales. Digital Publisher CEIT, 8(3), 892-899. https://doi.org/10.33386/593dp.2023.3.1827
10. Blank, G., Bolsover, G., & Dubois, E. (2014). A new privacy paradox: Young people and privacy on social network sites. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (pp. 1-34). San Francisco, California. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2479938
11. Blumenstyk, G. (2018). Can artificial intelligence make teaching more personal?. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/can-artificial-intelligence-make-teaching-more-personal/
12. Bourner, T. (1996). The research process: Four steps to success. In Greenfield, T. (Ed.), Research methods: guidance for postgraduatesin (pp. 7-11). Arnold.
13. Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? Workforce implications: Profound change is coming, but roles for humans remain. Science, 358(6370), 1530-1534. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8062
14. Canbay, Y., Vural, Y., & Sağıroğlu, Ş. (2020). Mahremiyet korumalı büyük veri yayınlama için kavramsal model önerileri. Politeknik Dergisi, 23(3), 785-798. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.535184
15. Cardon, P., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J., Logemann, M., & Heidewald, J. (2023). The Challenges and Opportunities of AI-Assisted Writing: Developing AI Literacy for the AI Age. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 257-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231176517
16. Cardona, M. A., Rodríguez, R. J., & Ishmael, K. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Future of Teaching and Learning: Insights and Recommendations. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. https://tech.ed.gov/
17. Çelik, İ., Dindar, M., Muukkonen, H., & Järvelä, S. (2022). The promises and challenges of artificial intelligence for teachers: A systematic review of research. TechTrends, 66, 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00715-y
18. Chen, X., Xie, H., Zou, D., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). Application and theory gaps during the rise of artificial intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 1, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2020.100002
19. Chounta, I.-A., Bardone, E., Raudsep, A., & Pedaste, M. (2022). Exploring teachers perceptions of artificial intelligence as a tool to support their practice in estonian K-12 education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 725-755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00243-5
20. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Oxford University Press, 58(1), 7-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150
21. Cubert, J. A., & Bone, R. G. A. (2018). The law of intellectual property created by artificial intelligence. In W. Barfield & U. Pagallo (Eds.), Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence (pp. 411-427). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786439055.00028
22. Damar, M., Özen, A., Çakmak, Ü. E., Özoğuz, E., & Erenay, F. S. (2024). Super AI, generative AI, narrow AI and chatbots: An assessment of artificial intelligence technologies for the public sector and public administration. Journal of AI, 8(1), 83-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.61969/jai.1512906
23. Dare, T. (2019). Ethics of artificial intelligence and health care. New Zealand Medical Student Journal, (28), 5-7. https://www.nzmsj.com/ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-and-health-care.html
24. Darı, A. B., & Koçyiğit, A. (2024). Yapay zekâ ve etik: Yeni medyanın dönüşümünde sorumluluk ve sınırlar. İletişim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 246-261. https://doi.org/10.59534/jcss.1492948
25. Darraj, E., Sample, C., & Justice, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence cybersecurity framework: Preparing for the here and now with AI. In T. Cruz, & P. Simoes (Eds.), 18th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (pp. 131-142). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited. Coimbra, Portugal.
26. DataCamp. (2024). AI in education: Benefits, challenges and ethical considerations. https://www.datacamp.com/blog/ai-in-education
27. Davidson, K. (2025). Super AI the next frontier in artificial intelligence research. QIT Press- International Journal of Super AI Research and Development, 6(1), 1-5.
28. De Graff, J. W. (2019). Sorting machine. Education Journal, 378, 18.
29. De Saint Laurent, C. (2018). In defence of machine learning: Debunking the myths of artificial intelligence. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 14(4), 734-747. https://doi.org/10.5964%2Fejop.v14i4.1823
30. Demirci, A. (2014). Literatür taraması. İçinde Y. Arı & İ. Kaya (Eds.), Coğrafya araştırma yöntemleri (ss. 73-107). Coğrafyacılar Derneği.
31. Dickson, B. (2017). What is narrow, general and super artificial intelligence. https://tinyurl.com/2bmj3ytd
32. Doğan, B. (2019). Kişisel verilerin işlenme şartları bağlamında açık rıza [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
33. Educause (2020). Educause horizon report 2020: Teaching and Learning Edition. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2020/3/2020-educause-horizon-report-teaching%20and-learning-edition
34. Eicher, B., Polepeddi, L., & Goel, A. (2018). Jill Watson doesn't care if you're pregnant: Grounding AI ethics in empirical studies. AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 88-94). Association for Computing Machinery. New Orleans, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278760
35. Ekici Şahin, M. (2012). Ceza hukukunda rıza. On İki Levha Yayınları.
36. Ekowa, M., & Palmer, I. (2016). Predictive analytics in higher education: Five guiding practices for ethical use. New America. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/predictive-analytics-in-higher-education/ N170224E.pdf
37. European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. (2022). Ethical guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and data in teaching and learning for educators. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/153756
38. European Commission. (2022). Ethical guidelines on AI and data in education. https://tinyurl.com/48785f4v
39. European Union [AB]. (2016). Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Councıl of 27 april 2016. https://tinyurl.com/4ceeptet
40. Froomkin, A. M., Kerr, I., & Pineau, J. (2019). When AIs outperform doctors: Confronting the challenges of a tort-induced over-reliance on machine learning. Arizona Law Review, 61(1), 33-99. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3114347
41. Gayed, J. M., Carlon, K. J., Oriola, A. M., & Cross, J. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing Assistant's impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100055
42. Gellai, D. B. (2022). Enterprising academics: Heterarchical policy networks for artificial intelligence in british higher education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(4), 568-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311221143798
43. George, B., & Wooden, O. (2023). Managing the strategic transformation of higher education through artificial intelligence. Administrative Sciences, 13(9), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13090196
44. Guera, D., & Delp, E. J. (2018) Deepfake video detection using recurrent neural networks. Paper presented at 15th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE Xplore. Auckland, New Zealand. https://doi.org/10.1109/AVSS.2018.8639163
45. Gültekin Talayhan, Ö., & Babayiğit, M. V. (2023). Yapay zekâ yazma araçlarının öğrenci yazılarının içeriği ve organizasyonu üzerindeki etkisi: Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce eğitmenlerinin algılarına odaklanması. Journal of Current Debates in Social Sciences, 6(2), 83-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/cudes.71701
46. Gündüz, M. Z., & Daş, R. (2016). Sosyal mühendislik: Yaygın ataklar ve güvenlik önlemleri. 9. Uluslararası Bilgi Güvenliği ve Kriptoloji Konferansı (ss. 1-8). ODTÜ, Ankara.
47. Güzey, C., Çakır, O., Athar, M. H., & Yurdaöz, E. (2023). Eğitimde yapay zekâ üzerine gerçekleştirilmiş araştırmalardaki eğilimlerin incelenmesi. Bilgi ve İletişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 5(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.53694/bited.1060730
48. Hadfield-Menell, D., McKane, A., & Hadfield, G. K. (2019) Legible normativity for AI alignment: The value of silly rules. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 417-422). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Honolulu, Hawaii. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1811.01267
49. Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign. https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AIED-Book-Excerpt-CCR.pdf
50. InfoSEC [Information Security Services]. (2024). Sosyal mühendislik: Siber güvenliğin görünmeyen tehlikesi. https://www.infosec.com.tr/sosyal-muhendislik/
51. Institute Of Data. (2023). Exploring the differences between narrow AI, general AI, and superintelligent AI. https://rb.gy/i1wjwj
52. International Children's Emergency Fund [UNICEF]. (2021). Policy guidance on AI for children. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/policy-guidance-ai-children
53. Jenkins, G. (2021). An extended doctrine of implied consent-A digital mediator?. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52, 706-733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01024-2
54. Johnson, D., & Verdicchio, M. (2017). Reframing AI discourse. Minds & Machines, 27(4), 575-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9417-6
55. Jones, M. L., Kaufman, E., & Edenberg, E. (2018). AI and the ethics of automating consent. IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(3), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.2701155
56. Kanade, V. (2022). Narrow AI vs. general AI vs. super AI: Key comparisons. Spiceworks. https://tinyurl.com/y6ysc8mt
57. Kangal, Z. T. (2011). Ceza hukukunda varsayılan rıza. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4), 223-251.
58. Kant, I. (2006). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (11th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
60. Karasar, N. (2023). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler (38. Basım). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu (KVKK). (2021). Kişisel verileri koruma kurumu, yapay zekâ alanında kişisel verilerin korunmasına dair tavsiyeler. https://tinyurl.com/ym8vz8eu
61. Kuleto, V., Ilić, M., Dumangiu, M., Ranković, M., Martins, O. M. D., Păun, D., & Mihoreanu, L. (2021). Exploring opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence and machine learning in higher education institutions. Sustainability, 13(18), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810424
62. Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., & Klemmer, S. R. (2013). Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(6), 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2505057
63. Lameras, P., & Arnab, S. (2022). Power to the teachers: An exploratory review on artificial intelligence in education. Information, 13(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13010014
64. Lameras, P., & Moumoutzis, N. (2021). Towards the development of a digital competency framework for digital teaching and learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1226-1232). IEEE Education Society. Vienna, Austria. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9454027
65. Leong, W. Y., & Zhang, J. B. (2025). Ethical design of AI for education and learning systems. ASM Sience Journal, 20(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.32802/asmscj.2025.1917
66. Levendowski, A. (2018). How copyright law can fix artificial intelligence's implicit bias problem. Washington Law Review, 93(579), 579-630. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3024938
67. Luan, H., Geczy, P., Lai, H., Gobert, J., Yang, S. J. H., Ogata, H., Baltes, J., Guerra, R., Li, P., & Tsai C. C. (2020). Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Educational Psychology, 11, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820
68. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1475756/
69. Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153809
70. Malle, B. F., Bello, P., & Scheutz, M. (2019). Requirements for an artificial agent with norm competence. AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 21-27). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314252
71. Marzuki, M., Widiati, U., Rusdin, D., Darwin, & Indrawati, I. (2023). The impact of AI writing tools on the content and organization of students’ writing: EFL teachers’ perspective. Cogent Education, 10(2), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2236469
72. McCarthy, J. (2007). What is artificial intelligence?. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/whatisai.html
73. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
74. Miller, F. A., Katz, J. H., & Gans, R. (2018). AI × I = AI2 the OD imperative to add inclusion to the algorithms of artificial intelligence. OD Practitioner, 50(1), 6-12.
75. Miller, F. G., Wertheim, A. (2011), The fair transaction model of informed consent: an alternative to autonomous authorization. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 21(3), 201-218. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2011.0013
76. Nguyen, A., Ngo, H. N., Hong, Y., Dang, B. & Nguyen, B. P. T. (2023). Ethical principles for artificial intelligence in education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4221-4241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11316-w
77. Nilsson, N. (1990). The mathematical foundations of learning machines. Morgan Kaufmann. Nyaaba, M., & Zhai, X. (2024). Generative AI professional development needs for teacher educators. Journal of AI, 8(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1385915
78. Öztürk Dilek, G. (2019). Yapay zekânın etik gerçekliği. Ankara Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4), 47-59.
79. Poole, D. I., Goebel, R. G., & Mackworth, A. K. (1998). Computational intelligence and knowledge. Oxford University Press.
80. Santry, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence ‘risks school apartheid’. Tes Magazine. https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/artificial-intelligence-risks-school-apartheid
81. Sarıkaya Tünalp, B. F. (2024). Yapay zeka sistemlerine etik değerlerin entegrasyonu-kavramsal çerçevede bir tartışma. Uluslararası Akademik Birikim Dergisi, 7(5), 1041-1052. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9492-7493
82. Sarkar, M. K., & Sarkar, S. S. D. (2024), The ethics of artificial intelligence: Ethics and moral challenges. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 30(5), 12367-12372. https://doi.org/10.53555/kuey.v30i5.5135
83. Schermer, B. W., Custers, B., & Van Der Hof, S. (2014). The crisis of consent: How stronger legal protection may lead to weaker consent in data protection. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(2), 171-182. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2412418
84. Serramia, M., López-Sánchez, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Morales, J., Wooldridge, M., & Ansótegui, C. (2018). Exploiting moral values to choose the right norms. AIES '18: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 264-270). Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). New Orleans, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278735
85. Sharma, S., & Kumar, N. (2023). The future of education: Implications of artificial intelligence integration in learning environments. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Educational Development, 11(5), 129-133.
86. Skinner, B. T. (2019). Making the connection: Broadband access and online course enrollment at public open admissions institutions. Research in Higher Education, 60(7), 960-999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9539-6
87. Southgate, E. (2019). Artificial intelligence in schools: An ethical storm is brewing. EduResearch Matters, Australia Association for Research in Education. https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=4325
88. Southgate, E., Blackmore, K., Pieschl, S., Grimes, S., McGuire, J., & Smithers, K. (2018). Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies (virtual, augmented and mixed reality) in schools: A research report. University of Newcastle, Australia.
89. Stahl, B. C., & Wright, D. (2018). Ethics and privacy in ai and big data: Implementing responsible research and innovation. IEEE Security & Privacy, 16(3), 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.2701164
90. Stenbom, A. (2023). Defining artificial intelligence. In M. Jaakkola (Ed.), Reporting on artificial ıntelligence (pp. 27-36). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). https://doi.org/10.58338/HSMK8605
91. Strickland, E. (2018). AI-human partnerships tackle "fake news": Machine learning can get you only so far-then human judgment is required. IEEE Spectrum, 55(9), 12-13. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2018.8449036
92. Tang, K. H. D. (2024). Implications of artificial intelligence for teaching and learning. Acta Pedagogia Asiana, 3(2), 65-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.53623/apga.v3i2.404
93. Tegmark, M. (2019). Yaşam 3.0 yapay zeka çağında insan olmak. Pegasus.
94. Temur, S. (2024a). Yapay zekâ kategorizasyonu ve tarihsel gelişim süreci. EJONS 17th International Congress "Artificial Intelligence and Society: Theory to Practice" (ss. 258-270). Konya, Türkiye.
95. Temur, S. (2024b). Yapay zekânın eğitim sistemine entegrasyonunun potansiyel faydaları. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(3), 2621-2656. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1541524
96. Temur, S. (2024c). Yapay zekânın etik boyutu ve hukuki düzenlemeler: Güncel durum ve gelecek perspektifleri. F. Ayaz & H. Ayaz (Eds.), Yapay zekâ denkleminde “sorgulananlar” (medya, iletişim ve eğitim çalışmaları) İçinde (ss. 145-172). Eğitim Yayınevi.
97. The Consortium for School Networking [CoSN]. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) in K-12. https://www.cosn.org/tools-and-resources/resource/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-k-12/
98. Turgut Bilgiç, E. (2024). Genel veri koruma ilkelerinin yapay zekâ karşısında uygulanabilirliği sorunu. Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi, (57), 247-282. https://doi.org/10.54049/taad.1418236
99. UN General Assembly (2018). Special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expressions. https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-freedom-of-opinion-and-expression
100. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO] (2023). ChatGPT and artificial intelligence in higher education-quick start guide. https://etico.iiep.unesco.org/en/chatgpt-and-artificial-intelligence-higher-education-quick-start-guide
101. Université de Montréal. (2018). Montréal Declaration for the responsible development of artificial intelligence. Université de Montréal. https://rb.gy/pes8ya
102. Varyonki, G. G. (2020). Yapay zeka teknolojisinin kişisel verilerin korunması açısından risk değerlendirmesi. İçinde Ş. Sağıroğlu & M. U. Demirezen (Eds), Yapay zeka ve büyük veri: Teknolojiler, yaklaşımlar ve uygulamalar (ss. 343-364). Nobel.
103. Vashistha, H., & Harikrishnan, M. (2025). A study on artificial intelligence ethics in education. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 7(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i01.36798
104. Vural Yılmaz, D. (2023). Yapay zekâ ve yükseköğretim. İçinde M. Aktaş (Ed.), Yapay zekâ yönetim ve eğitim (ss. 205-233). Nobel.
105. Wachter, S., & Mittelstadt, B. (2018). A right to reasonable inferences: Re-thinking data protection law in the age of big data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review, 2019(2), 494-620. http://dx.doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/mu2kf
106. Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A. & Cave, S. (2019). The role and limits of principles in ai ethics: Towards a focus on tensions. AIES '19: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 195-200). Honolulu, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289
107. Woerner, J. H. R., Turtova, A. P., & Lang, A. S. I. D. (2024). Transformative potentials and ethical considerations of AI Tools in Higher education: Case studies and reflections. SoutheastCon 2024 (pp. 510-515). Atlanta, USA. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SoutheastCon52093.2024.10500042
108. Yalçın, N., & Avşar, A. (2018). Sosyal mühendislik atakları ve alınması gereken önlemler. 20. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı (ss. 77-85). Karabük Üniversitesi, Karabük.
109. Yeşilyurt, S., Dündar, R. & Aydın, M. (2024). Sosyal bilgiler eğitimi alanında lisansüstü eğitimini sürdüren öğrencilerin yapay zekâ hakkındaki görüşleri. Asya Studies, 8(27), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.31455/asya.1406649
110. Zgrzebnicki, P. (2017). Selected ethical issues in artificial intelligence, autonomous system development and large data set processing. Studia Humana, 6(3), 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1515/sh-2017-0020
111. Zhai, X., Chu, X., Chai, C. S., Jong, M. S. Y., Istenic, A., Spector, M., Liu, J. B., Yuan, J., & Li, Y. (2021). "A review of artificial intelligence (AI) in education from 2010 to 2020". Complexity, 2021(6), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8812542