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. […]
Mitsu
Well, a nerdly approach would be: you could ask other professors what their typical signup curve is for the spring term, and create a model that would let you estimate the number of total students you will have based on past experience.
For the future, you could keep a record of how many students signed up and when, which you can use as a curve to predict later…
Jill
Ah! Cunning! This is the first year we have this particular sign up system, so I can’t compare data just yet – but I can take note for next year.
So for future reference: There are now 23 registered students. Orientation meetings are tomorrow, the student loans Monday and the first lecture Monday.
Elin
But Jill!
This is what students of humanistic informatics have to learn to do .. or at least we did, when I was there.
Not that we enjoyed it much, most of us.. but perhaps you can have the students do it FOR you… eksamens oppgave..?
E.
HÂkon Styri
“a nerdly approach would be: you could ask other professors”
Only problem with that approach would be that lectures apparently start before the sign-up deadline. Students may test drive the available lecturers before deciding.
Scary?
(Nah, not really. Being assigned a lecture room mondays at 8 am is hat I ould call somehat scary. Hopefully that doesn’t apply to you.)