Storage of banners on the Rainbow Warrior

Greenpeace’s ship the Rainbow Warrior 2 was in Bergen yesterday, and we went on down to have a look. The very friendly crew showed groups around the ship, explaining how the navigation system worked, how they’d had sails put on the ship (it can go faster by sail than using the motor when the winds are good) and how they’re going to be using a submergeable video camera to document the deep sea coral reefs outside of Bergen – both those that are intact and those that have been destroyed by bottom-trawling fishermen.

Sign to be used in Rainbow Warrior's campaign to protect deep sea coral reefs Stickers pasted on the wall by the stairs leading down to the hold on the Rainbow Warrior

When I googled “rainbow warrior bergen” to find out when the tours were held I came across the captain of the ship’s blog, Mike Mate. Apparently they’ve had the internet onboard for a few months now. One of the deck hands said that people were more social before they got the internet – now more time is spent hanging out in their cabins. But it’s pretty cool that they’re blogging.

The top photo shows how they store various banners for various kinds of campaigns, and the two below show a sign they’re going to use in their coral reef campaign and the wall by the stairs down to the hold, covered with stickers.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

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.