On July 8, an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm did not merely post a tweet; it sparked a crisis signaling a new era. The recent “Grok Crisis” on the X platform underscored that AI is no longer solely a technical matter but also a critical fault line in social media, politics, ethics and regulation. This development provides a compelling backdrop for evaluating the approaches and institutional capacities of Türkiye and the European Union in the realm of AI. The risk of AI misuse is a global concern, and the Grok case has reignited the need to define a balance between freedom and control in AI governance. This opens the door to shared goals and collaborative regulatory frameworks.
Recent reports, such as the “Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Research Report (2025)” by the Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) and the “Outlook Report on Generative AI – Exploring the Intersection between Technology, Society and Policy (2025)” by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), highlight AI-related risks. These reports warn that AI systems can be exploited by terrorist organizations, propaganda networks or malicious actors. Similarly, the EU’s assessment report emphasizes that threats such as misinformation, biased algorithms, workforce transformation, and privacy violations could undermine democratic stability, particularly during elections. To address these risks, both Türkiye and the EU must establish stronger ethical frameworks, enhance cybersecurity investments and foster multi-stakeholder collaborations.
According to the BTK report, Türkiye’s approach to AI centers focuses on domestic technology production, economic independence and efficiency in public services. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy aims to expand AI applications in sectors like health care, telecommunications, cybersecurity and education. Türkiye’s young, tech-savvy population and flexible regulatory environment offer advantages for short-term innovation, with goals to train more experts through diverse projects. However, uncontrolled AI systems pose risks of social polarization and disinformation in countries where regulatory capacity is still developing. Over the long term, this flexibility could create challenges in data security, ethical standards and societal trust. In contrast, the EU’s approach is more structured and ethics-driven.
The EU’s most notable step is the Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act), enacted in 2024. This regulation categorizes AI systems into four risk levels as unacceptable, high, limited and minimal, mandating transparency, accountability and ethical compliance, particularly in sensitive areas like health care, security, justice and education. The EU’s core objective is to prevent AI from “Grokification” – that is, transforming into uncontrolled systems that, in the name of algorithmic freedom, undermine social order and democratic processes.
The JRC’s “Outlook Report on Generative AI” addresses these issues from both policy and societal perspectives. The EU supports AI research with billions of euros through programs like Horizon Europe and fosters startups. However, the report notes that the EU lags behind competitors such as the U.S. and China in AI innovation speed, partly due to overly rigid regulations that can constrain the innovation potential of smaller enterprises. While the AI Act positions the EU as a global leader in AI regulation, the AI Continent Action Plan seeks to mitigate the risks of over-regulation.
The AI-driven social media crisis on July 8, 2025, highlighted how unchecked AI can be used as a tool for perception engineering, political manipulation and disinformation. Entrusting content moderation to AI systems has created responsibility gaps, with systems like Grok fueling political polarization under the guise of humor or freedom, thereby constricting the digital civic space. During elections, AI-managed bots can facilitate real-time manipulation and information distortion, potentially undermining the legitimacy of democracy.
The EU is actively developing measures to counter these risks, particularly as generative AI (GenAI) facilitates content creation, enabling voice, image and text mimicry that produces “fake realities.” The AI Act aims to balance these risks, while Türkiye must carefully assess these challenges in shaping its own strategy. A synthesis between these approaches may be feasible.
The U.S. pursues a market-driven AI model, while China relies on strict state control. The EU, with its AI Act, offers an ethics-centered, human-rights-focused approach. Türkiye, meanwhile, seeks a balanced path among these models. Having faced coordinated disinformation campaigns on social media in the past, Türkiye has developed countermeasures and regulations to address this issue. The core dilemma is clear: overly permissive AI risks new crises, social division and security vulnerabilities, while excessive regulation may stifle innovation, particularly for smaller enterprises. Thus, ethical, technical and institutional responses must be developed in tandem.
Although Türkiye and the EU adopt different regulatory models, these differences can be complementary. AI represents both a competitive and collaborative domain. Türkiye can draw on the EU’s ethical framework to strengthen data security and accountability, while the EU can take inspiration from Türkiye’s agile innovation capacity. Joint R&D projects, university networks and data processing platforms are critical tools in this context. Collaboration on AI-driven solutions for shared challenges, such as migration, border security, disaster management and health technologies, is also promising. While Türkiye may not be a direct party to the AI Act, developing a similar “Ethical AI Guideline” is increasingly urgent.
Despite their seemingly divergent AI approaches, Türkiye and the EU share complementary strengths. Türkiye’s dynamic, homegrown innovation capacity, combined with the EU’s experience in ethical and legal standards, could enable a more competitive stance in the global AI race. Joint training programs, data-sharing protocols and R&D initiatives will be pivotal. The Grok crisis revealed that AI is not merely an engineering challenge but also a matter of societal governance. Though Türkiye and the EU follow different paths, their shared goal is to build ethical, fair and trustworthy AI systems that serve humanity. Achieving this requires not only code but also values, institutions and a shared sense of responsibility.
