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. […]
noah
Of course, sometimes the editor will do the negotiation ahead of time, on behalf of all contributors. You weren’t unhappy with any of the First Person agreement, were you?
Jill
Not at the time, I thought the First Person agreement was great! I still think it’s pretty good, though I’m not sure that it allows me to archive the my chapter in BORA. I actually emailed the MIT Press person named on the contract I signed just the other day to ask whether BORA archiving would be OK with them, and I expect they’ll answer.
And at the time it had never occurred to me that I’d want to archive the thing in BORA…
I should add that I really appreciate the work that editors do with publications. I probably sounded more gumpry in that post than I really am about it – I love seeing my work in print 🙂
noah
I’d be very surprised if there was any problem. I mean, the MITP folks would need to somehow construe BORA as an “edited volume.” I don’t think it makes any sense to call open access archives edited volumes, but since you’re checking on this issue it means that other contributors won’t have to.
Jill
I had a reply back today from MIT Press, saying they were quite happy for me to archive the First Person article in BORA; and that they’d appreciate me waiting six months after the publication of Second Person before putting my contribution to that book there, but after that it would be fine.
So yes, I’m happy with MIT Press 🙂
Eric
Thanks for posting this. Now, if I only had more articles ready for publication…