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. […]
Rorschach
I think it was NASA that did something like this a couple years ago where they wired the controller to the FPS to the biofeedback device. The less relaxed or “alpha” that you were, the harder it was to control your character (the less control you had). The only way to really control your character in the game was to relax.
I don’t remember the specifics but they weren’t doing the research with some relaxing game, but instead were using Quake or something similar. Yes, having eight bad guys running at you, the more you tense up and the less control you have so all you’re supposed to do is relaaax.
Yeah. Right.
I know that there were people insterested in doing a commercial application with the bio-feedback control but I haven’t seen anything since until this. This is a little different though; no one’s running after you with a chain-saw trying to make you relax.
blog - PÂl tÊnker
Well, plug me in…
It’s not the Matrix yet, but there is definately an upcoming trend of merging leisure and electronics in a cyborgish way. This article brings the news of gameplaying experience being enhanced by electrical microcurrents to the inner ear. Alledgedly the…
miscellany is the largest category
Journey to Wild Divine
Like Jill, I’m fascinated by the idea behind The Journey to Wild Divine game, an “Inner-Active” computer game. In my dissertation work, I’m working towards an examination of embodied computing in gaming that broadens the reach of the avatar beyond…