NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day, June 24, 2020

Civil Society and Artificial Intelligence in Türkiye

Read the report

Cover: NASA, June 24, 2020; the day CDR was founded.

Speed does not bring safety or accountability.”

Nesibe Kırış Can gov2ai

Program Consultant

The same tension plays out in organizations with no written policy at all. When a staff member opens a tool to begin research, take meeting notes, draft a text or translate, the organization may not yet have defined its AI policy, who is responsible for what, or its data boundaries. But the moment use begins, the organization has in effect made a decision. Which information can be shared, which output can be trusted, which work must go through human review, and who is accountable when something goes wrong: none of this leaves our responsibility, even without a written rule.

For rights-based organizations, this concern runs even deeper. Beyond using AI themselves, these organizations work with communities affected by surveillance, discrimination, data concentration and digital repression. The issue is therefore not only organizational efficiency; it is a responsibility of trust, care and accountability toward stakeholders.

With this report, we propose a workable path between rejecting technology and adopting it without question.

Drawing on the experiences of the 45 organizations that took part in our survey, we define minimum safeguards to make AI use safer, more accountable and rights-based. Our aim is not a flawless compliance system; it is for every organization to make its current use visible and take the next step from where it stands.

The report sets out to answer four questions.

For which tasks, and to what extent, do civil society organizations use AI?
What does this use cost, who pays for it, and is it sustainable?
What rules and what institutional capacity does responsible use require?
How can organizations keep their use of AI from harming the people they serve?

Safeguards are not keeping pace with use.

In the 2026 sample, AI use is no longer the exception. 96% of the organizations in our survey said they use AI in at least one area. The key question is therefore no longer whether AI is used, but where it is used and who decides on that use.

Use and awareness

96%

of organizations use AI in at least one area

Safeguards and control

56%

of organizations say they have no ethical framework to refer to when assessing their AI use

Use and awareness

84%

of organizations rate their AI literacy as moderate or higher

Safeguards and control

33%

of organizations have the institutional capacity to assess AI investments technically

Use and awareness

89%

of organizations are aware that AI systems can affect the right to privacy

Safeguards and control

22%

of organizations enter business plans, confidential projects or internal correspondence into general-purpose AI tools

Use and awareness

51%

of organizations mark the prohibition of discrimination among the rights that may be affected

Safeguards and control

31%

of organizations regularly test AI outputs for bias

This report draws on

civil society organizations’ experiences.

Each square is one organization; those shown in light use AI in at least one area.

14%

of organizations using AI also use it in core workflows tied directly to their mission; 21% under a broader definition

53%

of organizations name the most common challenge: identifying where AI would help most; implementation cost is second at 44%

40%

of organizations allocate no budget to AI

58%

of organizations see technical skills training as effective support; governance training 33%, procurement review 9%

organizations could clearly name a legal mechanism specific to transferring personal data abroad

The details are in the report.

Use cases, cost and budget, rules and institutional capacity, rights impacts and minimum safeguards are covered in the full report, which is published in Turkish.

Read the report

This report was prepared with the financial support of the following organizations.