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. […]
jon
I’m in the “desperately wanting” category of iPod fans too.
One of my colleagues was showing me her new 15 GB iPod yesterday. She and her husband just treated themselves to one each. Apparently all he does is stare at his iPod in disbelief at the moment.
fivecats
Keep in mind there’s a class action lawsuit against Apple concerning the iPod. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&ncid=738&e=2&u=/nm/20040210/tc_nm/tech_apple_dc)
Turns out the rechargeable battery (a) has a limited lifespan and (b) isn’t replaceable. (At least, not yet)
On the other hand, my 40 GIG iPod is a great toy. I listen to it while I’m at the gym through headphones and at home I have it plugged into it’s cradle in our bedroom attached to speakers on either side of our bed. It will be nice while it lasts.
…
Jill
There’s class action? I remember the media jamming about the low battery life, but then Apple started selling cheaper batteries, and claimed to have started doing so before the complaints came in. Here’s my November 28 post on it all, read the comments.
Anne
I’d love an iPod, but for right now I’ve go to wait and save.
fivecats
Oh. Well, if you want to get all up-to-date on me, fine. 🙂
Oops. Sorry. Guess I’m more behind the times than I thought.
…
Jill
Heh 🙂
Well but Fivecats, the article you linked was just a few days old. So perhaps there’s class action despite apple’s something-or-other.
Elin
I really don’t get it. What is so cool about the ipods, apart from the shiny colors? I don’t want one. I don’t want one. I don’t want one:-)
Frank
You can replace the battery.
http://ipodbattery.com/