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. […]
rob wittig
The way in which the comments on Justin’s site spin off-topic (fictionalizing blogs) and out of control . . . from ad hominem attacks on, and defenses of, Justin . . . into little slap-fights about the definition of the word “probable” . . . to jealousy over Justin’s well-deserved reputation and value as a student to any number of grad programs . . . to the cherry on top of my reading as of this morning, the last entry of 11 May 2004 : 08:25 apologizing for unintentional offense that may have been given in passing . . . is both COMICAL and TYPICAL of our new writing world.
This single list of comments is a MICROCOSM — hero worship, hero jealousy, inability to keep on topic, wearing one’s heart on one’s sleeve, quickness to take offense, putting out one fire while starting two others, on and on . . . a whole essay in one column of text.
Jill
You’re right – it’s everything compressed, isn’t it?
Elin
I can’t believe people don’t have better things to do. And all over “suspicious” admission dates – I thought it was pretty common knowledge that special rules apply to special people (even in Norway:-)
Justin’s life aside – I rather like the idea of faking your life online!
E.
Doug
Faking an entire life on line sounds rather exhausting. The man who tells no lies, need remember nothing.
Of course, as an exercise in writing ficition it would be rather amusing.
But then, what is the difference between “faking it” and “writing fiction”?
I did like the simulacrum gag in those comments, and the specious scandal-sheet article though.
greglas
It’s a strange little social drama, for sure.
What’s interests me is that (I think) he’s gone from being accused by readers of deceptive fabrication to being accused of *withholding* relevant and material personal information.
rob wittig
greglas, you’re absolutely correct. Nice going!
People feel they have a right to the lives of certain kinds of public figures.
As to the line between fiction and hoax, my favorite example is the classic English novel Robinson Crusoe, which was orignally published without its real author, Daniel Defoe’s, name, simply as “the adventures, etc. of Robinson Crusoe.”
Defoe wrote “Crusoe” as a response to a real account of a shipwrecked sailor that had been a hit the year before . . . and then turned out to be a hoax. Novel? Hoax? What was the difference?