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. […]
Francois Lachance
Jill, I understand some of your travel in the near future will involve making time to be in a online environment rather than experiencing the jet lag to get there. I am thinking about your upcoming appearance at the Hawaii conference. In the future we might be reading more conference programs with a mix of in person and remote connections.
Francois Lachance
Jill,
I understand that some of your “travel” in the near future will involve making time to participate via an online environment rather than experiencing the jet lag to get there. I am thinking about your upcoming appearance at the Hawaii conference. Which I recall was a blast of intensive call and response in past years. In the future we might be reading more conference programs with a mix of in person and remote access, all in the interest of making connections.
Jill
FranÁois, you’ve been to the Hawaiian conference! Do tell me what about it?
And yes! Hawaii! Online 😉 I haven’t blogged that yet cos I’m not quite sure which day I’m talking on, but receiving the invitation was amusing – first I was like YAY!!! HAWAII!!! Then I was oh no, there’s no way I have time to go to Hawaii… And then when the Bert Kimara, the conference organiser wrote back with a “no no no, it’s ONLINE”, I was thrilled.
I’m giving a talk here in Bergen the day before, at the dSpace conference on open access archives. I’m already looking forward to amending my CV so it says Bergen on April 19, Hawaii on April 20. I *think* Hawaii is April 20. And I’m totally at ease with jetlag.
Of course, one day I’d like to REALLY go to Hawaii. Just not right now.
Francois Lachance
Participation in the conference can vary from reading the posted papers and keynote addresses to participating in synchronous chat sessions with the authors. One particular session was quite memorable. In the household of the presenter, the dog chewed through or yanked a cable. The session carried on and the presenter was able to rejoin the group after a suitable cable was quickly located. I believe that memorable experience occurred in a year previous to the Chats being archived.
For a flavour and glimpse of the evolution, the presentations and chat sessions from previous conferences are available:
http://tcc.kcc.hawaii.edu/previousconferences.html