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. […]
This is a “death map”, showing where players are most likely to die on a particular level of Half-Life 2, found on a page of player statistics for Half-Life provided by Valve, the company that makes Half-Life. Apparently players’ copies of the games are automatically reporting back to the mothership on details such as where they die, the average session time (26 minutes), average completion time (6 hours, 14 minutes) and so forth. While there are potential privacy issues about software automatically sending messages “home” to its creator, I love that they’re releasing the statistics freely – what a great tool for researchers. And seeing this kind of information openly available also makes me feel calmer about the sorts of things being reported and why they’d be useful to the software creator. I wish Microsoft and Apple and the others would do the same. (Found via Kottke.org)
2ndhandsoul
Trust is a two-way street. I wonder if that can be true about the Information Superhighway? It is nice to coddle ourselves with the belief of Open Source and freedom of information sharing, etc. No one will misuse this information. Perish the thought! The Almight Dollar can always warp and alter this intent. Perhaps I am being jaded. Truthfully — and if you’ll trust me here — I think that information should be freely taken and freely given, if it is in line with the terms of service and is asked for without guile. I have had them ask me numerous times through Steam to participate in their surveys. Sometimes I say yes, sometimes I say no, depending on what they are gathering. They always give out their full reports, usually on who is using what systems and so forth. It is slightly enlightening to see what people are doing out there; sort of a demographic of computers. This death map is another interesting use of statistical information gathered. Of course, this information can be recycled into good or bad uses. It would be good for further refinement of game mechanics or story development or whatnot, to tweak difficulties or whatever, by finding out why people are dying more in certain areas. It may be bad to pump it into another marketing byproduct, somehow to create revenue for revenue’s sake. (Not quite sure how this specific information would, but that’s never stopped anyone from trying, I think.) Blah blah blah. 🙂 Intriguing, nonetheless.
2ndhandsoul
P.S. Valve and Steam, despite these informational processes still have tons of technical difficulties. I wish they would somehow fix that before going on to other things, which they always seem to be doing. Secondly, Microsoft and Apple will never do that sort of thing, for reasons that may or may not be obvious. They are too interested in protecting their precious property, no matter what form it may take. Yet, they are still as fraught with problems as Valve. I think I can deal with a problematic company that appears upfront than one that is shady or appears more concerned with profit than its clientele.