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. […]
larsd
Det er et tilfelle fra Danmark, hvor en forsker ble fratatt sin doktorgrad p grunn av avskrift. Om dette ble avsl¯rt ex auditorium, vet jeg ikke
Jill
Plagiarism? How embarrassing! No, I’m sure I wrote it myself. And I’m sure nobody was killed due to the writing.
😉
HÂkon Styri
I’m not certain whether the case Jill was told about is the same case that I vaguely recall, but that wasn’t back in the twenties.
It’s correct that a lab assistant asked a question ex auditorium, but the lab assistant did have to answer a few questions regarding the lab reports during the investigation.
I belive the incident was called a scandal and the candidate was awarded a PhD at another university.
Jill
Ooh! So it’s true to some degree! Goodness. Thanks, HÂkon. Any more details, anyone?
real icon
Shouldn’t it be “ex auditorio”, by the way?
“You need to cultivate a consumer mentality: remember how much you’ve paid to get to this moment, and take advantage of the all-star cast (a.k.a. your committee members) you’ve assembled by asking THEM questions.”
(Joan Bolker)
Jill
Oh, you’re right! I never studied Latin, so I even had to do a web search to check this, but yes, you’re absolutely correct. I’ve fixed the title, now 🙂
And WOW. I need to plan my QUESTIONS!!
Jamie
Now that you are about to join `the club’ it is time that we can reveal to you the secret of what you should try to avoid at your defence: http://www.angelfire.com/ak/Smitter/thesis.html (although #91 is probably okay nowadays).
I’d wish you good luck but you obviously don’t need luck because you’ll be awesome as always.