MUHASEBE BİLGİSİNİN ONTOLOJİK DÖNÜŞÜMÜ: YAPAY ZEKÂ ÇAĞINDA FİNANSAL GERÇEĞİN TEMSİLİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin muhasebe bilgisinin üretimi, sunumu ve yorumlanması üzerindeki etkilerini ontolojik bir çerçevede ele alarak, finansal gerçeğin temsiline ilişkin ortaya çıkan dönüşümü tartışmaktır. Geleneksel muhasebe anlayışında finansal gerçeklik, insan yargısına ve mesleki takdire dayalı olarak inşa edilirken; yapay zekâ destekli sistemlerle birlikte bu temsil süreci giderek algoritmik karar mekanizmalarına devredilmektedir. Çalışma, muhasebe bilgisinin niteliğinde meydana gelen bu dönüşümün, şeffaflık, güvenilirlik, açıklanabilirlik ve mesleki hesap verebilirlik kavramları açısından ne anlama geldiğini ortaya koymayı hedeflemektedir. Bu araştırma, muhasebe, denetim, finans ve yapay zekâ alanlarındaki literatürü bilgi yapısı bir çerçeve içinde eleştirel bir şekilde değerlendiren ve sentezleyen kavramsal bir makale olarak tasarlanmıştır. Çalışmada, ampirik bir uygulama yerine uluslararası akademik çalışmalar ve mesleki düzenlemeler bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla ele alınmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, yapay zekâ çağında muhasebe bilgisinin yalnızca teknik bir veri çıktısı olmaktan uzaklaştığı, finansal gerçeğin temsiline ilişkin kuramsal temel varsayımların yeniden ele alınması gerektiği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, muhasebe ve denetim mesleği için etik, kurumsal ve standartlara yönelik önemli çıkarımlar sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Muhasebe Bilgisi
• Yapay Zekâ
• Finansal Gerçeklik
• Ontolojik Dönüşüm
• Denetim

THE ONTOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION OF ACCOUNTING KNOWLEDGE: REPRESENTING FINANCIAL REALITY IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Öz

This study aims to discuss the transformation in the representation of financial reality by examining the effects of artificial intelligence technologies on the production, presentation, and interpretation of accounting information within an ontological framework. While in traditional accounting, financial reality is constructed based on human judgment and professional discretion, with AI-supported systems, this representation process is increasingly being delegated to algorithmic decision-making mechanisms. The study aims to reveal what this transformation in the quality of accounting information means in terms of transparency, reliability, explainability, and professional accountability. This research is designed as a conceptual article that critically evaluates and synthesises the literature in the fields of accounting, auditing, finance, and artificial intelligence within an information structure framework. Instead of an empirical application, the study takes a holistic approach, considering international academic studies and professional regulations. As a result of the study, it is concluded that in the age of artificial intelligence, accounting information is moving away from being merely a technical data output, and that the theoretical fundamental assumptions regarding the representation of financial reality need to be re-examined. In this context, important implications for ethics, institutions, and standards for the accounting and auditing professions are presented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Accounting Knowledge
• Artificial Intelligence
• Financial Reality
• Ontological Transformation
• Auditing.

Kaynakça

1. Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2017). Big data and analytics in the modern audit engagement: Research needs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-51684
2. Arora, M., & Sharma, R. L. (2023). Artificial intelligence and big data: Ontological and communicative perspectives in multi-sectoral scenarios of modern businesses. Foresight, 25(1), 126–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-10-2021-0216
3. Baldwin, A. A., Brown, C. E., & Trinkle, B. S. (2006). Opportunities for artificial intelligence development in the accounting domain. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 14(3), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.274
4. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24758720
5. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press. https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENL205/simulacra-and-simulation-by-jean-baudrillard.pdf
6. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
7. Bhimani, A., & Willcocks, L. (2014). Digitisation, big data and the transformation of accounting information. Accounting and Business Research, 44(4), 469–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.910051
8. Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine "thinks": Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512

9. Chen, C., Luo, P., Zhao, H., Wei, M., Zhang, P., Liu, Z., & Meng, L. (2025). A unified ontological and explainable framework for decoding AI risks from news data. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 25621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-10675-x
10. Davenport, T. H., & Kirby, J. (2016). Just how smart are smart machines? MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), 21–25.
11. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning (arXiv:1702.08608). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608
12. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., ... Wright, R. (2023). So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, Article 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
13. European Commission. (2020). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission.
14. Fırat, Z. (2025). Artificial intelligence in auditing: Opportunities, challenges, and future directions. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 27(2), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1577715
15. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
16. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112877902500313
17. Güney, A., & Özcan, E. (2025). Yapay zekânın muhasebede kullanımı üzerine bir araştırma. Journal of Accounting Institute, (72), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.26650/MED.1492095
18. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511814563
19. Hines, R. D. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90003-7
20. IAASB. (2022). Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised), Audit Evidence, and Proposed Conforming and Consequential Amendments to Other ISAs. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. https://www.iaasb.org/publications/proposed-international-standard-auditing-500-revised-audit-evidence-and-proposed-conforming-and
21. IAASB. (2024). Technology position. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. https://www.iaasb.org/publications/technology-position-statement
22. Kantarcı, N., & Uzay, Ş. (2025). Yapay zekâ, blok zinciri ve diğer yeni teknolojilerin hileli finansal raporlamanın tespitine etkisi: Nitel bir analiz. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (107), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.1685967
23. Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. Proceedings of the 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2017), 43, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2017.43
24. Kokina, J., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How automation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51730
25. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13213-2_50
26. Macintosh, N. B., Shearer, T., Thornton, D. B., & Welker, M. (2000). Accounting as simulacrum and hyperreality: Perspectives on income and capital. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(1), 13–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00010-0
27. Mackenzie, D. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262134606.001.0001
28. Mattessich, R. (2003). Accounting representation and the onion model of reality: A comparison with Baudrillard's orders of simulacra and his hyperreality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(5), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00024-7
29. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
30. Moll, J., & Yigitbasioglu, O. (2019). The role of internet-related technologies in shaping the work of accountants: New directions for accounting research. The British Accounting Review, 51(6), Article 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.04.002
31. OECD. (2019). Artificial intelligence in society. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eedfee77-en
32. Park, J. S., O'Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023). Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Article 2, pp. 1–22). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606763
33. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
34. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x98220058
35. Quattrone, P. (2016). Management accounting goes digital: Will the move make it wiser? Management Accounting Research, 31, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2016.01.003
36. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
37. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2022). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson. http://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/efdd4d1d4c2087fe1cbe03d9ced67f34.pdf
38. Sutton, S. G., Holt, M., & Arnold, V. (2016). “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated”—Artificial intelligence research in accounting. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 22, 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2016.07.005
39. Varol, N. (2023). Dijital dönüşüm ve yapay zekâ: Muhasebenin ve denetimin geleceği. Denetim ve Güvence Hizmetleri Dergisi, 3(2), 162–184.
40. Velioğlu, H., & Demirkol, Ö. F. (2024). Blokzincir tabanlı muhasebe denetiminde yapay zekânın rolü. Econharran, 8(14), 27–44.
41. Zhang, C. A., Cho, S., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 46, Article 100572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100572
42. Zhong, R. (2024). Transparent AI in auditing: A conceptual framework. Accounting Horizons, 38(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2023-009