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. […]
Terry Freedman
This seems very interesting, and I am looking forward to reading the original research. I have to say that I don’t imagine the situation is helped by the way some schools and organisations try to make up for the gender imbalance (however cused). For example, one organisation gets girls between the ages of 10 and 14 to use an online tool to colour in hands and nails, because this is a good way of getting girls interested in things like databases. When I was teaching, which was not that long ago, I set the kids challenging tasks which were completely unbiased as far as I know, and the only difference I noticed between girls and boys, if any, was that girls usually became focused sooner and stayed that way for longer. However, on the whole, the only social engineering I did in my lessons was to make sure that the boys didn’t hog all the equipment and shout the girls down.
So, in summary (sorry about this long rant!), I absolutely agree with you about the social differences, and think that the only biological differences (but meybe they are social differences too) is that girls are much deeper thinkers than boys, or at least they start thinking deeply sooner, given the right task in a supportive environment, and without resorting to patronising gimmicks!
Jess
We can start talking about biological differences when the social differences are a little less extreme.
What a beautiful, concise way of expressing something that I got quite worked up trying to talk to the fam about at Thanksgiving (a horrible holiday that you’re well quit of in Norway). My mother and sister were defending Larry Summers’ remarks on women’s innate science abilities (“he didn’t say they WERE genetically unable to do math, he just said we should CONSIDER it”) in the face of my overwrought insistence on the importance of socialization. I wish I’d been level-headed enough to express the thought so simply.
hanna
I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s bothered by this. I went to a talk by the that same organisation recently and was quite disappointed. Not only are the tasks very much based on stereotypes of young girls (nails, fashion, etc.) but I’m not convinced the girls are learning anything susbtantial about computing in the process. I asked the speaker whether the girls were told about databases when they were colouring in nails, and was told that many instructors did not have the relevant knowledge and experience to explain the underlying computing concepts.
Jill
I reacted to that too – hands and nails indeed. If they’re not even explicit about the database aspect of it all, that’s just so counter-productive… Thanks for all your comments!