ABSTRACT
With the rapid development of technology, it has become the main goal to facilitate human life, to save time and to save costs with the increase of earnings. So that robotics has been included in our lives to achieve this goal. With the development of robotics, robots with artificial intelligence have begun to take more places in our lives and this has been increasing every year. In this manner, the interaction between robots with artificial intelligence and humans also has increased in direct proportion to this. However, this increasing interaction brings with it many legal problems. Problems may arise especially in terms of damages caused by the actions of robots with artificial intelligence. However, although there is no statutory regulation in our country specific to this situation, it seems that the developing technology will require necessary regulations in this regard in the near future. In this article, firstly, we will evaluate whether the creatures with artificial intelligence have legal personality or not, and then whether they have any responsibility for the damages they may cause due to having artificial intelligence will be evaluated within the Turkish legislation. The field of artificial intelligence is developing so fast that it is estimated that in 2022 most people will have their own personal robot.
I. INTRODUCTION
Robots, which have been shown as a science fiction story in the past, have become an unavoidable fact of today. Thanks to the rapidly developing technology, it is possible for human life to be easier, to save time and cost, and to make works more effortless as robots take more place in our lives. The artificial intelligence concept firstly was used by John McCarthy, Martin Minsky, Nathaniel Rocheter and Claude Shannon. These people included the idea of artificial intelligence in our lives with the presentation, named as "Artificial Intelligence Research for Two Months and Ten Person" in the seminar, they gave in 1956. The concept of artificial intelligence, which we are more familiar with every day since this date, appears in every aspect of our lives. For example, in our daily life, there are robots that stand when they see objects and sweep the house, robots that can care for elderly or children, robots that can find mines during the war, and driverless cars, and new examples have been added to these ones every day. The field of artificial intelligence is developing so fast that it is estimated that in 2022 most people will have their own personal robot1. This shows that, with technology that is in rapid development, new legal problems will also occur. In brief, the law will need new regulations against the developing technology and will create rules according to the needs. The interaction of robots among themselves and the interaction of robots between humans will create various problems in terms of law and it will need to be solved with the rules of law specific to these issues.
II. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND ROBOT CONCEPTS
It is useful to express the meaning of the concepts of artificial intelligence and robot before mentioning of the responsibility for the damages caused by the actions of the robots. The term robot comes from the Czech word "robota", which means "forced labor". According to another definition, the robot is defined as machines that act intelligently depending on their mechanical systems and associated control and detection systems and computer algorithms2. According to the Turkish Language Association, the robot is expressed as follows: “An automatic tool that can be done with a variety of jobs with magnetism to perform a special work”3. Apart from that, we can express the robot word in the legal sense as follows: “The robot is a system that not biologically alive, but built and bearing physically and mentally subjective characteristics”4. Robotics is defined as the science and technique that examines the scientific methods used for the design and building of robots5. Based on the definitions, it is possible to define robots as machines that can move physically by themselves, make decisions and mostly have the ability to learn. Although there are many types of robots that are expressed in the definitions, robots are divided into autonomous and semi-autonomous. When robots are configured close to human appearance, it is expressed as android and when set with artificial and biological parts, it is expressed as a cyborg. Devices that are subject to such discrimination; in case of;
the body, the muscular system, allowing to move,
a sensor system for collecting information,
a power source, allowing the movement of the body,
a brain that can command the actions to be done,
can be described as a robot6.
The part that forms the robot and importance increases day by day is the brain. Robots with artificial intelligence are capable of using their minds at the highest level. Therefore, robots with artificial intelligence learn the information they perceive from the environment through their sensors, unlike other robots. With the learning activity, it will now have information about what is happening around it and will be able to remember this information when necessary and reuse it for the current situation and conditions.
The concept of artificial intelligence can be defined as machines that can demonstrate that human-specific problem-solving ability can be realized by machines, and that can imitate what people can do7. Based on this definition, we can say that artificial intelligence is a machine with human thinking abilities. In this way, a robot with artificial intelligence can easily overcome the obstacles before it and re-apply what it has experienced before. In such a case, we can talk about a robot that can think and act based on their experience. However, it is not true for us to define an arm that makes packaging in a factory as a robot, because the arm used for packaging will not serve any other purpose. Therefore, even if there is no package to be packed, the arm operated in the idle state will move in the same way, without a package to be packed, just as it moves while doing the packaging process. For this reason, it is true to call a machine instead of a robot for this arm.
The concept of artificial intelligence is divided into 3 (three) different groups in terms of capacity:
Narrow Artificial Intelligence: Artificial intelligence that is far from human abilities and has expertise only in certain subjects. For example, the calculator has a narrow artificial intelligence, as it only makes calculation. Therefore, they are the species that do not have thinking and perception abilities.
General Artificial Intelligence: They are artificial intelligence that can perceive the movements and events around them and show the human characteristics mostly. Because they have human-specific characteristics, they can evaluate the situation and conditions, create solutions to problems, and show superior thinking ability in complex situations.
Super Artificial Intelligence: Artificial intelligence is more advanced than human intelligence. This type of artificial intelligence can be seen as a threat to humanity8.
Increasing developing artificial intelligence is divided into groups in this way and varies and gives us clues that it will exist in our lives more seriously in the future. But after such rapid development, as the robots are more intelligent than humans and capable of learning and operating, the size of the danger will increase. This situation is expressed with deep concern by some of the leading scientists. Not a long time ago, 100-pages report with the heading “Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Prediction, Prevention and Mitigation” (Brundage et al., 2018), prepared by 26 experts from 14 different institutions, including Oxford University's Institute for the Future of Humanity, Cambridge University Existing Risk Research Center, Elon Musk's OpenAI company and the Electronic Frontier Foundation makes dire predictions. Among the predictions are situations such as hacking of programs on the internet, poisoning the data with attacks that will damage the program data, having accidents in a conscious way by capturing vehicles with automatic drivers, and assassinating using advanced drone9. Considering the situations that may arise from this report, it is stated by scientists that people prepare their own endings with the production of robots with artificial intelligence and this situation will become more and more serious10. For this reason, it is imperative that governments make legal arrangements for the dangers that may arise in artificial intelligence. At this point, although concrete steps are not yet taken, awareness on this issue is gradually increasing.
III. LEGAL STATUS OF ROBOTS WITH ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE
While robots with artificial intelligence possess human features such as learning, experiencing, and solving problems, they can control their actions and behavior independently from people by acting on their own. Especially in terms of robots with general and super artificial intelligence, what we say is much easier. Therefore, the idea that they should have legal responsibilities and rights as they have human-specific characteristics is becoming more and more common. For example, if there is a person who lost his life as a result of the intervention of a robot with artificial intelligence, a responsibility will arise. In this case, it will come to the fore whether a robot with artificial intelligence will be held responsible for the damage caused or not. Since law is considered as a human-specific and human concept, existing legal systems hold a real person and an unreal person, namely the legal person, responsible for the damages they have caused. Therefore, attention should be paid to the character of robotswith advanced artificial intelligence, who are very intelligent and can think and make their own decisions.
In the article no. 8 of the Turkish Civil Code ("TCC") dated 22 November 2001 and numbered 4721, the person concept is defined as follows: “Every person has capacity to have rights and obligations. Accordingly, all people are equal in the competence of rights and liabilities within the boundaries of the legal order”11. Also in the article no. 48 of TCC, legal entity concept is defined as follows: “Legal entities are entitled to all rights and liabilities except for those who are dependent on human qualities by nature such as gender, age, and relationship”12. As it can be understood from the related articles, TCC accepts the person as a real and legal person with an equal legal status other than those that are dependent on human qualities such as gender, age, and relationship.
The fact that robots with artificial intelligence can be considered as a person legally is one of the most discussed topics today. It should be accepted that there are some basic criteria that robots with artificial intelligence must considered as equivalent to human beings. So, if they are accepted legally as a person, they should have certain personal capacity criteria besides the rights that strong artificial intelligence would have legally. The most important of these is the ability to interact with the environment, to think complex and to communicate. In order to mention a creature, having a personality, it will be expected that it has a meaningful interaction with the environment. Interaction with the environment must be diverse, versatile and advanced. Appropriate answers should be provided by analyzing the information received and encountered by it besides the interaction with the environment. In this context, creatures, having the personality must have the capacity to learn the results they will draw from their experience. Communication can be mentioned when a robot with artificial intelligence understands what is said and gives meaningful and correct answers to them13.
It is possible to gather people's reaction to the current situation and conditions under five different features. First of all, human behavior is not mechanical, so the given reactions are flexible. Secondly, people have the ability to make sense of uncertain and contradictory messages. Thirdly, they can identify and distinguish the relative importance of different matters in the face of a situation. In the fourth one, they may draw a comparison for different situations. As the fifth and last feature, people can easily understand the similarities and differences between previous and current situations14. Accordingly, Allen Turing set forth the "Turing Test" in order to be able to determine in a concrete way whether artificial intelligence behaves like a human or not. In this test, the definition of a computer's ability to act like a human is made. In the test, there are two computers behind a wall and a person typing on the keyboard of one of the computers and software on the other's one. According to this, will the person doing the test realize that the person opposite to him/her is human through the questions he received and wrote15? As a result of the application of the test in question, it has been aimed to prove that artificial intelligence can take human intelligence in, but there is no computer that passed the test16.
Apart from features such as thinking and communicating, people differ from other living creatures with their consciousness. However, since there is no definite judgment about the issue of consciousness, it cannot provide an exact criterion in terms of personality. For example, there are people who are unconscious but can survive. Also, legal entities have personality, but they have not consciousness. The meaning of this consciousness is that the person can make plans for his life and design these plans according to himself. However, it is difficult to think that robots with artificial intelligence can act on this subject. Because it aims to exist in all areas of society, robots with artificial intelligence should adapt in the society so that they can take their place in society. Since human is a social being, it exists in every area of society and has a responsibility because it is a part of society. So, if a robot with artificial intelligence will be given personality, this robot will have to exist in society and has ability of living with people. In order for robots to live with humans, they should respect people and avoid violations with humans. People living together in society respect each other and sometimes act for others, not only thinking about themselves. In this manner, expectations from robots with artificial intelligence will be in this direction so that they can live together in society.
IV. THE ISSUE OF PERSONALITY OF ROBOTS WITH ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE
There are various opinions about giving personality to robots with artificial intelligence, as technology develops, the number of viewers also increases with the number of views. In addition to those who support giving personality to robots with artificial intelligence, there are opinions that suggest that robots are not put into any status and that robots cannot legally have a personality. In addition to these views, there are also those who offer that the robots should have a personality due to the increasingly included in our lives, but because they are not a real person, so they should be given electronic personality. Finally, there is an opinion stating that it is unnecessary to include a new personality concept for robots, and because it is a non-human creature, the concept of a legal entity recognized in TCC can be used appropriately for robots.
1. The Opinion which accepts the Personality of Robots with Artificial Intelligence
People who advocate this opinion defend that the robot with an intelligence moves consciously, it should be equal with people because it shows regular movements like people who are sensitive to the actions around them, can solve problems, like people. They do not approve that a creature acting as a human should be in a separate place or they don't have personality. If it has human features, being a robot isn't be essential. For these reasons, they also accept robots with artificial intelligence as individuals. But they say that the personality should be given on the condition that it has humanistic features, does not threaten humanity and is foresightful. In addition, they say that when the personality is given to robots, there will be a severe easing in human life, they will save their time, and robots can do severe and hard works17. At this point, when we evaluate the defenders of this view, we witness the selfishness and pragmatic approach of a human.
2. The Opinion which rejects the Personality of Robots with Artificial Intelligence
It is unnecessary to give a personality to the robots, according to the view that objects to give a legal personality to the robots. Solving a problem caused by robots or having a right by them does not depend on whether they have a personality or not. Problems that may arise according to this view will be eliminated by granting limited rights and responsibilities to be given depending on their usage areas and by integrating certain insurance systems. It is suggested that artificial intelligence will continue to remain an article. This approach means to accept the possession of someone like any other tool and depending that artificial intelligence belongs to the real and legal person18.
According to this view, which also associates not giving personality to the robots with artificial intelligence with slavery, they think that when robots are given personality, they will be used as slaves by humans, and this will constitute a contradiction to personal rights. From this aspect, it will be unavoidable to use an article that can act as a human and work like a slave. Therefore, because slavery has been legitimized when artificial intelligence is given personality, the persecution of black people in this regard in the past will be also made to robots, therefore, robots should not be given a legal personality and there will be no solution to the legal problems that will occur19.
3. The Opinion Which Suggests Giving Electronic Personality to Robots with Artificial Intelligence
It is said that robots should have legal status for the damages caused by robots with artificial intelligence getting more and more places today, and the first concrete step taken officially was with the report published by the European Parliament on January 27, 2017. Many views on the status of artificial intelligence includes in this report. Among these views, the most riveting view is that an electronic personality can be created apart from the real and legal entity, defined in the legislation. The people, having this view state that robots with artificial intelligence cannot be considered as articles, and that they cannot be among the people defined in the civil law because they are not a real person. Therefore, they argue that robots with artificial intelligence and having intelligence and perform human-specific activities should be given an electronic personality and this situation should be formalized20.
In the report, it was suggested that the existing artificial intelligence should be recorded in an official registry and that the material funds established specifically to artificial creatures should be used in case of responsibility for compensation21. It is understood from here that the opinion is in the direction of adoption of the legal responsibility of artificial intelligence against the damages they cause. Adopting robots with artificial intelligence as a legal person will mean that they can be given strict liability. It would be enough to have a causal relation between the defect and the action in order to regard it as a strict liable.
4. The Opinion Suggesting That the Robots with Artifical Intellegience Shall be Accepted As Legal Entities
Robots with artificial intelligence will never be accepted as a real person because it is an invention, creation, and made by human hands. However, due to their intelligence, they can cause damage as a result of their actions. In order for these damages to be covered, it must be a legally recognized person so that a damage compensation can be referred22. Thus, people, having this view argue that by giving an independent legal personality, a status can be granted between the legally recognized person and an article23.
V. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE
The gradual increase of robots with artificial intelligence brings it with the responsibility issue. And damages arising from the actions of robots who are aware of their own actions and movements and which legal basis to eliminate these damages are possible by comparing the existing legal sources for now because there is no regulation on this subject. In his book of famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov, he talks about three robot laws that robots must obey. The laws are regulated as follows:
A robot cannot harm humanity or cannot allow to be damaged human by remaining immobile. (rule 0)
As long as it does not contradict the 0.law, a robot cannot harm humanity in any way or allow it being damaged by remaining passive. (rule 1)
A robot has to obey commands given to him by humans as long as it does not contradict the rule 0 and 1 (rule 2)
A robot must protect its existence, as long as it does not contradict the 0., 1. and 2rules24. (rule 3)
In this way, it has been tried to draw a limit for robots, but these laws will not be a solution for situations that will occur due to the unpredictable rapid development of robots. For example, when a robot with software is hacked and controlled, it is not qualified to answer the question of who will be responsible for the damages caused by the robot. Therefore, since there is no existing regulation, the only way to be applied for such problems would be the Turkish Criminal Code (“TCC”) and the Turkish Code of Obligations (“TCO”). The problem will be tried to be solved by giving the responsibility according to the type of crime committed in TCC or the real person who owns the robot with artificial intelligence in TCO.
IV. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF ROBOTS WITH ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE
Since there is no existing regulation in legal systems, the responsibilities of robots with artificial intelligence can be evaluated in several possibilities.
1. In Terms of Criminal Law
To evaluate the possibility that a robot with artificial intelligence may be responsible in terms of criminal law, it will be necessary to consider it separately in terms of the types of crime in TCC dated 26 September 2004 and numbered 5237.
It seems impossible to refer to the responsibilities of robots that do not have artificial intelligence but can be used as a tool. A robot that can only be managed with commands without artificial intelligence does not have the capacity to comprehend the actions, it perform. Therefore, the responsibility for damage that will occur will belong to the software developer who has programmed what that robot can do. The person who programmes the robot will be held responsible for the defect in case the robot in question causes crime due to an error in programming. For example, users who use robots in wars or cause damage in any way will be held responsible for the damages that will occur as a result of this situation. This uses can be considered as a usage of a kind of weapon. The definition of weapons is made as follows in item (f) of the paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the TCC:
“f) Weapon means;
Firearms,
Explosive goods,
Any cutting, piercing or wounding device made for use in attack and defense,
Other instruments that are actually suitable for use in attack and defense, even if they are not made for attack and defense purposes,
Nuclear, radioactive, chemical, biological substances, burning, corrosive, injuring, suffocating, poisoning and causing permanent diseases”25.
It is very possible to use a robot as a weapon based on the abovementioned definition26. A different matter is the indirect agency situation of people who use robots to harm and commit crimes. Under the TCC, indirect agency is defined as follows:
“Article 37 - (2) The person who uses someone else as a means in the offense is also held responsible as the agent. The punishment of the person who uses the ones who do not have defect ability as a means in the committing of the crime is increased up to half from one third." So, it is possible for those who use the robot to act as a human by giving a command to it is an indirect agent due to the damages arising from it.
In another case, there may be an issue when the robot is unable to adapt itself to changing situations and conditions and holds responsible for the damages that occur as a result of doing the work as it is. While the robot is doing the work, for which it is programmed, it is possible that some problems will arise as the current situation changes and continues to do the work. For example, if the hydraulic arm is in defense in a sense in order to protect itself or the work they do, within the existing information, it will not be possible to be accepted as a simple tool. The occurrence of such situations is due to the fact that the user or the programmer did not pay enough attention or care to a number of possible problems. Therefore, it will cause the negligence of the user or programmer27.
2. In Terms of Law of Obligations
As robots do not yet have any legal status, they will be evaluated mutatis mutandis in terms of responsibility for compensation in Turkish legislation. In terms of compensation responsibility, firstly, it will be necessary to refer to the provisions on strict liability. Strict liabilities are included in the article no. 65 of TCO and its continuation; it is divided into three as "equity liability, care liability and danger liability".
Equity liability in the article no. 65 of TCO is regulated as: “If it requires equity; the judge decides to completely or partially eliminate the damage caused by the person who has no mental competence"28. Equity liability mentions the responsibility of those who do not have the mental competence according to the TCO. In this case, it will be possible to refer to the owner or operator of the robot for the compensation of damages caused by the robot, in the event of the causal relation, harm and illegal action required for the occurrence of the damage.
Care liability, which is another one of the strict liabilities, is divided into three as the liability of the employer, the liability of the animal keeper and the liability of the building owner. Liability of the employer is defined as follows in the article 66 of TCO29: "The employer is obliged to eliminate the harm, caused by the employee for others during the work given to him." According to the article, the damages caused by the robot when it is programmed and doing the given work will have to be covered by the employer. And liability of the animal keeper is defined as follows in the article 67 of TCO30: "The person who undertakes the care and maintenance of an animal permanently or temporarily is obliged to eliminate the damage caused by the animal.” According to the article, if a comparison is made within the scope of the liability of the animal keeper, the people, having the robot should be responsible for the damages caused by their robots and take the necessary care to prevent the robots from causing any damage.
The danger liability, which is the last one of the strict liabilities, is defined as follows in the article 71 of TCO31: "In the event of a loss from the operation of a business that presents a significant danger, the owner and the operator, if any, are jointly responsible for this loss." According to the article, people working on artificial intelligence or companies running these robots will have a danger liability in this context. Due to the loss for this reason, it will be possible to refer to the responsibility of these people within the comparison.
VII. CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION
As a result of the rapid development of technology, it is very clear that robots with artificial intelligence, which have taken more and more place in our lives, make our lives easier in every field. Both reducing workload and saving time and costs cause the increase of robots. This increase brings a variety of legal problems with it besides facilities and savings. However, legal regulations regarding this are not yet available. At first, the legal status of robots should be discussed and evaluated within the scope of TCO, in order to create liability in terms of TCC and TCO. After a consensus exists on this matter, an additional evaluation will be required in terms of criminal and compensation liabilities. In the current case, TCC and TCO can be applied mutatis mutandis in terms of Turkish legislation within the scope of damages caused by robots. However, existing comparison methods will not be sufficient and necessary legal arrangements will have to be made. In this context, the provisions determined within the scope of the report prepared by the European Parliament will be adapted to Turkish legislation or a separate arrangement specific to robots with artificial intelligence and so, relating problems will be solved.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
M. NEIL RICHARDS, “How should the law think about robots?”, We Robot 2012, Inaugural Conference on Legal and Policy Issues Relating to Robotics, April 21-22, 2012, University of Miami School of Law, s.12 (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). http://yapbenzet.kocaeli.edu.tr/robot-nedir/ (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020).
ÇAĞLAR ERSOY, “Robotlar, Yapay Zeka ve Hukuk”, On İki Levha Yayınları, 2017.
ESRA DEM IR, Robot Hukuku, İstanbul 2017, https://www. academia.edu/37378164/ROBOT_HUKUKU (Erişim Tarihi: 24.02.2020)
ARMAĞAN BOZKURT/BAŞAK BAK (2018) “Yapay Zeka”, Futurist Hukuk, Aristo Yayınevi, İstanbul s.6 vd.
SEDA KARA KILIÇARSLAN, Yapay Zekanın Hukuki Statüsü ve Hukuki Kişiliği Üzerine Tartışmalar, YBHD Yıl 4, Sayı 2019/2, s. 366,367. https://www.webtekno.com/stephen-hawking-tekrar-uyardiyapay-zeka-robotlari-insanligin-yerini-alacak-h35943.html (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020).
MAIA ALEXANDRE “https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=2985466” s. 12. (Erişim tarihi, 01.03.2020). https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ loyolr34&div=24&id=&page= . (Erişim tarihi, 01.03.2020).
BRUNDAGE, M., AVIN, S., CLARK, J., TONER, H., ECKERSLEY, P., GARFINKEL, B., & ANDERSON, The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation. H. (2018) (Miles Brundage/ Shahar Avin/ Jack Clark/ Helen Toner/ Peter Eckersley/ Ben Garfinkel&Anderson). https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.07228.pdf (Erişim tarihi, 01.03.2020).
“Asimov Yasalarına İhtiyacımız Var Mı?”https://www. technologyreview.com/s/527336/do-we-need-asimovs-laws/ (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020).
“Yapay zekada etik konusunda AB kuralları: Bağlam ve uygulama” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ BRIE/2019/640163/EPRS_BRI(2019)640163_EN.pdf (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/people/A.Sharkey/Sparrow.pdf (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). http://www.terasemjournals.org/PCJournal/PC0201/ calverley_d.html (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020).
SINAN ALTUNÇ, “Robotlar, Yapay Zeka ve Ceza Hukuku” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336406393_ Robotlar_Yapay_Zeka_ve_Ceza_Hukuku (Erişim Tarihi: 28.04.2020) http://robots.law.miami.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/
RichardsSmart_HowShouldTheLawThink pdf (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2563965 (Erişim Tarihi: 01.03.2020) http://bilgisayarkavramlari.sadievrenseker.com/2013/04/02/ turing-testi/ (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/03/ robots%E2%80%99-legal-personality (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). https://sozluk.gov.tr/ (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020). https://tr.oldict.com/robotbilim/ (Erişim tarihi, 24.02.2020).
FOOTNOTES
1 M. Neil Richards, “How should the law think about robots?”, We Robot 2012, Inagural Conference on Legal and Policy Issues Relating to Robotics, April 21-22, 2012, University of Miami School of Law, p.12, http:// robots.law.miami.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RichardsSmart_HowShouldTheLawThink.pdf (Access date:24.02.2020)
2 http://yapbenzet.kocaeli.edu.tr/robot-nedir/ (Access date: 24.02.2020)
3 https://sozluk.gov.tr/ (Access date: 24.02.2020)
4 Çağlar Ersoy, Robotlar, Yapay Zeka ve Hukuk, On İki Levha Publication, İstanbul 2017, p. 35.
5 https://tr.oldict.com/robotbilim/ (Access date: 24.02.2020)
6 Esra Demir, Robot Hukuku, İstanbul 2017, https://www.academia. edu/37378164/ROBOT_HUKUKU (Access date: 24.02.2020)
7 Armağan Bozkurt / Başak Bak, “Yapay Zeka”, Futurist Hukuk, Aristo Pub., İstanbul 2018, p.6 vd.
8 Seda Kara Kılıçarslan, “Yapay Zekanın Hukuki Statüsü ve Hukuki Kişiliği Üzerine Tartışmalar”, YBHD Y. 4, Issue 2019/2, pp. 366,367.
9 Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., & Anderson, The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1802/1802.07228.pdf (Access date: 01.03.2020)
10 https://www.webtekno.com/ stephen-hawking-tekrar-uyardi-yapay-zeka-robotlari-insanligin-yerini-alacak-h35943.html (Access date: 24.02.2020)
11 TCC, Art. 8.
12 TCC, Art. 48.
13 Kılıçarslan, p. 366-367.
14 https://heinonline.org/HOL/ LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ loyolr34&div=24&id=&page= (Access date: 01.03.2020).
15 http://bilgisayarkavramlari.sadievrenseker.com/2013/04/02/turing-testi/ (Access date: 24.02.2020).
16 Kılıçarslan, p. 374
17 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2563965 (Access date: 01.03.2020).
18 Maia Alexandre,“https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2985466”, p. 12.
19 Ersoy, p. 95.
20 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/640163/ EPRS_BRI(2019)640163_EN.pdf (Access date: 01.03.2020).
21 Ersoy, p. 89.
22 http://www.terasemjournals.org/ PCJournal/PC0201/calverley_d.html (Access date: 24.02.2020).
23 https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/ business-law-blog/blog/2017/03/ robots%E2%80%99-legal-personality (Access date: 24.02.2020).
24 https://www.technologyreview. com/s/527336/do-we-need-asimovslaws/ (Access date: 24.02.2020).
25 TCC Art. 6.
26 http://staffwww.dcs.shef.ac.uk/ people/A.Sharkey/Sparrow.pdf (Access date: 24.02.2020).
27 Sinan Altunç, “Robotlar, Yapay Zeka ve Ceza Hukuku” https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/336406393_Robotlar_Yapay_ Zeka_ve_Ceza_Hukuku (Access date: 24.02.2020).
28 TCO art.65
29 TCO art.66
30 TCO art.67
31 TCO art.71
