In an entertainingly written open letter to Hillary Clinton, Steven Johnson writes that, in the last decade, the decade of videogames in every home, violent crime has dropped more than in any other period of time. Car-jacking has been getting less and less common since the introduction of Grand Theft Auto, in which car-jacking is of course a major passtime. And US teenagers’ mathematical and verbal skills, as shown on test scores, have improved. Good stats to drop next time someone assumes videogames are destroying youth. Unfortunately, Norwegian statistics doesn’t reveal any long-term studies, or surveys showing youth crime specifically, and it even looks as though violent crimes have increased in the last decade, though there are somewhat fewer serious violent crimes than in 2004.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “carjacking moving from streets to Grand Theft Auto

  1. Linn

    I absolutely adore the discussions emerging from this big yooohaa named ‘Hot Coffee’! And it’s so nice to see people like Steven Johnson (although not suprised) contributing. I almost found tears in my eyes reading Game Evolution’s Duke Ferris’ article on the subject ( http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htm)

    It is important to discuss this…and extremely important to study it here in Norway as well. But I honestly can’t get over the irony that it’s parents who are letting their 11 year olds play this game that are protesting the loudest. Seems banal to even have age limitations then!!! LOL!

  2. Jill

    Isn’t it hilarious? I’m particularly tickled by the grandmother suing the game company – she bought the game for her FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD grandson, despite its 17 and over age limit and all the huge warnings about the violence in it and she’s complaining that she didn’t realise she was giving him sex! Hihi 🙂

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.