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. […]
Torill
Actually, “bl??gge” is a quite common word around here, and that is perhaps the more frequently used version of the “piercing the big vein at the throath of a fish with a knife in order to make it bleed.” So three versions: blogge, bl??gge, blodge.
So I guess, if a blogger goes for the throath, that’s traditional in Norway…
Lars
That’s amazing. I always thought “bl??gge” was the only way to spell the fish-slaughtering thing, and I’ve travelled the coast from Bergen to Russia extensively. Probably a southern dialect thing.
On a completely tangential note, one of my all time favourite album titles comes from Troms??-based folk band Boknakaran: “Unbl??gged”.
H?•kon Styri
I guess the closest you’ll get in English is looking up the ethymology of “bleed”.
I don’t know about the usefullness, but my blog’s seen lots of visitors searching for the blog/blogg word and posting about it was overdue.
Jill
Bl??gge? Ah well, I don’t actually know either word, so I’ll trust anyone’s opinion here!
torill
Lars: “Boknakaran”? Oh, that’s a cute name. (And for english speakers – it means guys who are salted and partially dried, but not completely, just cured enough that they keep fairly well in the winter. No, not normally used for men, the usual “bokna” thing is hering – “boknasild”. The taste is definitely aquired.)
Jill
The taste for the men or the herring?