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. […]
creativity/machine » Slides from my MIT5 paper ‘Vernacular Photography 2.0′
[…] Jill posted slides of her presentation just now – such I good idea that I thought I’d steal it […]
Mike
Interesting. You’ve met Clancy Ratliff, and you’re likely aware that American college writing teachers talk a lot about concerns of appropriation and collaboration in digital writing. Clancy gave a really interesting presentation on blogs and appropriation at our annual convention this year, as did Rebecca Moore Howard, and I’ve lately been looking at how to understand acts of writerly production and appropriation in economic terms. I’d be curious and grateful to see the text of your presentation, if you feel like sharing.
J. R. Carpenter
Hi Jill. Didn’t get a chance to speak with you after your talk but did want to interject a comment about blg art. People are using blogs in unsusal ways, The Java Museum is issuing a call for submissions for a blog art project. http://www.javamuseum.org/blog/?p=18
Don’t know that my blog is blog art, but I do find I’m using it in different ways than most that you mentioned in your talk. It certainly has been a useful way for me to force myself to publish short pieces of writing that I might not otherwise act on, continuing the poetry chapbook tradition in a way. Lapsus Linguae: http://luckysoap.com/lapsuslinguae.
Mostly, I’m a web artist. Here’s the piece I presented at MiT5: jttp://luckysoap.com/entreville