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. […]
Christian
I think the group exist in weblogs too, as an informal network of ìblogfriendsî. The only difference is that they circulate on which blog they are discussing topics on.
Michael
But doesn’t the grouping in mailing lists also cluster around subject and context? The fact of the list is predicated on shared interest in predetermined discussion topics – yes?
BTW – I’ve remembered what it was that brought me a pleasing whiff of Calvino around here.
First thing I read when I arrived at your site was that left-hand sidebar (even online, I tend to be a literal left-to-right reader). The “interactive narrative” thing immediately made me think of “If on a winter’s night a traveller…” which I still return to after all these years, every now and again. Good enough to make me want to learn Italian.
Sadly, the latest imprint has butchered the original quasi-interactive design of the original soft back. On my moth-eaten copy the text of the work (this page) actually starts on the front cover of the book, continuing within the covers. Same idea recently stolen by Dave Eggers for his latest.
I seem to have wandered off topic.
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
Jill
A post at vlog links to and discusses this post, but I had to delete the trackback because it broke my layout.