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
* the following is played to the tune of “You’re in the Army now” *
Welcome to the incredibly frustrating, but – at the end of the day – rewarding world of *nix! For most daily users of OS X in terminal mode, Linux, FreeBSD or whatever, the wisest strategy is probably not to set the goals too high (“learning Unix” surely is one such goal?), and rather aim for knowing just the things you need to get your work done.
Regardless of the complexity, there is something to be said for an OS which has been in development for decades. For instance, I’ve found that there’s _always_ an obscure (or blindingly obvious) Unix command which will solve your specific problem. And I’ve learnt from bitter experience that it pays to write down exactly what you did, as you will surely have forgotten it the next time you need it. 🙂
Jill
That’s probably my main problem – I do things too rarely. I thought I could install MoveableType in my sleep but had forgotten STUPID little things (like I can’t ssh that server not because I’ve forgotten the password or have the wrong command but because the admin won’t allow ANYONE to ssh it, argh) and OH it’s so annoying! Actually I suppose that’s not about me not knowing Unix but about me not being in charge of the server, isn’t it…
Still, it’s (almost) working now 🙂 And next time I’ll remember!
“Learn Unix” is too high a goal? Oh dear…
Eirik
Well, what can I say: “Linux in a nutshell” (of the usual high O’Reilly-standard, thus highly recommended) is a _thick_ book (928 pages in the fourth edition). I shudder at the thought of how much is outside the nutshell. 😉