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. […]
H?•kon Styri
Nice story, but somehow I cannot get rid of the idea that universities should attempt more challenging tasks than usic distribution. What if they started offering lectures? Then the following quote in USA Today would make some sense.
“I listen to it all day long,” he says. “It’s really convenient for me.”
😀
Jill
LOL 🙂
nick
Why, exactly, is it a good idea for universities to use their resources to enrich the recording industry by supplying companies with special retail technologies and access to their students, to allow the recording industry to use their campuses as test markets and for pilot programs for their retail projects?
It’s a good idea because students need to be saved by the university from being sued by the recording industry?
Not only does this have nothing to do with the educational and research missions of the university, it has nothing to do with business. Companies interested in business could, for instance, simply open the iTunes Music Store, no need for college campuses to be involved. This is just extortion.
University computer networks are mainly for education, research, creative work by students, staff, and faculty, and for the free exchange of information to further these sorts goals. If they’re being used for something inappropriate (copying files in violation of copyright) the answer is not to add in another inappropriate use (retail sales of recorded music), but rather to address the problem in a way that doesn’t overlook the main purpose of university computer networks. In this case, why should the university bother with this matter at all? Let the “injured party” and the alleged infringers deal with it – the university has enough to deal with in considering the relevant uses of the networked computer.
Anonymous
Please note: In order to use Rhapsody, you will need to have Internet Explorer 5.0 or newer installed on your computer.
Bl?¶?¶?¶
Jill
Well, I don’t know whether money’s being spent on this that would otherwise have gone to pay lecturers or buy better chairs for auditorium ms – perhaps they’re using money that might otherwise have gone to buy an extra elliptical trainer in the student gym or to buy another channel on the cable tv in the student dorms or to sponsor the student radio or buy entertainment magazines for the library.
Student welfare is one of the concerns at most universities, and certainly this could be seen as a legitimate student welfare issue. Whether or not it’s more valuable than other good causes that money might be spent on is another matter.
Also the article states that several of the schools are chargnig students for the service – they’ve just got a collective deal, where students pay $2 a month if they like, instead of $10 a month as they would if they were subscribing as individuals. It sounds like it’s voluntary.
I do see your point, though – obviously the recording industry’s getting a lot out of these kinds of deals, too.
nick
Any company in the world is free to offer student discounts if they like; they don’t need to partner with a university and set up systems on their network in order to do that. This is not about student discounts, but is presumably about allowing one company a privileged or monopoly-like position, benefiting from students’ abillity to easily check off a box at the beginning of the semester and have mom and dad pay.
Universities very well may be using money that would have gone to sponsor student radio. If they paid for student radio instead, students could learn to run a radio station, determine its programming, broadcast community announcements, disc jockey, have guests on their shows, and so on. Installing a special music service is just a way to enrich the very same companies who are threatening to sue students if they aren’t paid off. Not only does this frame the students as consumers rather than as active participants in a university community, it frames them as thieves who need to be saved from themselves by corporate America.
This seems less like buying entertainment magazines for the library and more like letting Barnes and Noble set up a store inside the library. I would find even that development less distasteful, though, because at least Barnes and Noble hasn’t been going around suing libraries.
Jill
You’re right that the digital music people could simply give all students a discount. And I completely agree that a student radio is a worthier thing for a student welfare body to fund – working in the student radio was one of the best things I did as a student, both socially and in terms of practical learning and professionalism.
Don’t most universities have bookshops on campus though? Sure, not in the library, but commercial sales are not only permitted they’re encouraged to some extent. Monopolies are worrysome. I was horrified to realise that Stockton college’s cafeterias apparently don’t sell real orange juice because they can only sell Coca Cola’s products and Coca Cola’s idea of orange juice is that strange Minute Maid stuff in cans. I know there are plenty of colleges who’ve signed that particular deal with Coke.
So yes, your points are good. It’s not an easy matter.