Strange how much easier it is to plan next semester‘s course than to just finishing this week‘s grading. I was just giving myself a few minutes of surfing, honestly, just a moment, you know, only then I thought I’d just ever-so-quickly try to set up Liz Lawley’s MT courseware, and lo and behold it all worked and was really easy so of course then I had to start filling it with content and translating it into Norwegian and… I shouldn’t even admit that. My current students will start emailing me in protest. I promise, students, I’ll get a move on! Really!

I once heard a successful administrator announce his rules for getting things done in an after dinner speech. The rules went something like this:

  1. When you get to work in the morning, start by doing the thing you least want to do.
  2. Keep going.
  3. By doing this you’ll probably already have covered whatever has the shortest deadline but if not, do that now.
  4. Go home. Reboot.

I might have that wrong. Maybe it was do the dreaded thing first then do the things that have to be finished now. I wonder whether it’d work


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “got distracted

  1. steve

    Ha! I spent last night working on my fall syllabus and playing with Liz Lawley’s courseware, instead of finishing the final work of the semester.

  2. nick

    When you get to work in the morning, start by doing the thing you least want to do.

    I used to do that, until that sort of behavior conditioned me not to go into work anymore.

  3. Jill

    See, I knew there was a reason to not follow this advice!

  4. J. Nathan Matias

    Could work avoidance be a scheduling system itself? It seems to me that plenty of work happens during it, when channeled properly.

  5. Norman

    A careful selection of ancestors, combined with a little luck in which of them supplies the relevant DNA, can overcome all such problems.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

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. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.