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. […]
Eirik
I agree. What’s more, this information isn’t necessarily reliable. For instance, the taxable income published in Norway often says more about how good someone’s accountant is, rather than what they really earned.
BTW: Nice to have have you back and blogging again! 🙂
Lars
Precisely the reason why the records are public, Eirik. You probably already know who is rich and who is not. You probably wouldn’t know that the rich guy pays less taxes than the other guy if this information wasn’t public. Of course, drowning the interesting inequalities in a sea of average incomes sort of ruins the point. But the law can’t discriminate. That’s up to the editor (or, in this case, possibly up to the person conducting the search).
Eirik
You seem to have missed my point, which is this: when the public records are misleading, as is often the case here, they are essentially useless. I do not necessarily know who is rich and who is not, and I have no sure way of finding out whether the number listed reflects true income or is the result of clever tax planning (really rich guys usually own companies, remember).
Deena
Yes, but if you look at the overall statistics, it is alarming. Particularly at http://www.fundrace.org/citymap.php
which shows how MUCH more money Bush is getting!