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. […]
Jason
No – American newspapers aren’t terribly expensive. Weekdays generally run 25 to 50 cents, with the Sunday paper usually settling in around $1.50. I imagine the NYTimes probably thought “Hey, we sure don’t make enough money from actually selling the paper, so let’s charge people for doing research!”
Then again, it could be that such pricing is consistent with what they would charge were you to request a print archive copy. I’m not sure. Likely, they priced high in the beginning (and stuck with it), figuring that – like taxes – it’s easier to lower a cost than raise one.
Personally, I think it’s a bit much, which is why I try to copy the text of any article that I think is interesting before it falls under the “archive” date.
peter
I think that is good value
Liz
Supply and demand. If you’re looking for a specific article, chances are you have a higher demand for it, and will pay the higher price for the value. (You’re also subsidizing the development and maintenance of the searching and archiving of content, I suppose.)
Not that I like it…but I understand why it would be more expensive to get the specific archived article than it would to buy the paper. (And reading the online version is free, an even better deal than the print version.)
Jill
So does the NYT only want me to pay to read that article I linked to above because it’s not today’s article? But today’s is free?
Yes, reading today’s online edition for free is indeed, cheap, but surely US$2.95 for a single article’s rather hefty – that’s almost a whole beer, even in Norway 🙂
comeon
When you know your target audience have spent a thousand bucks to “read” your content, instead of paying 2 bucks for it, you know they would have the money to pay for more.
Barnum’s called it “a sucker’s born every minute.”
chris mcconnell
Jason is correct about most papers, but NYTimes is a little more expensive: 75 cents in the city and $1.00 outside for daily editions. The Sunday edition is like $3.50-$4.00, whatever it is, it’s way too expensive for me. Its pretty standard for papers to charge for archives: I suppose they assume that they won’t lose any readers by charging for old content, but they can gain some revenue from the readers that *really* want that old story. I use my university’s Lexis/Nexis subscription when I want to read recent old articles like that.