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. […]
Bryan Young
I don’t think you will ever see the USA outlaw smoking anywhere as a country. It is considered too much of a civil liberty issue. On a city by city basis laws against smoking in resteraunts are being established, but lets also not forget that for several states tobacco is big buisness so their senators would never allow a national smoking law to pass.
Ian Bogost
Yes, laws like this are typically state-by-state in the USA. California outlawed smoking in restaurants in 1994. They outlawed smoking in bars in… I think 1996, maybe 1997. And I have to admit, as someone who lived in Los Angeles since the restaurant ban until a month ago, when I go into a restaurant and someone asks me, “smoking or non-?” I literally gasp in disgust: people smoke while they eat?
Eric Scheid
Don’t worry about Australia falling behind. The local council for Manly Beach recently outlawed smoking on that beach, and the same is being considered for Bondi Beach too.
amber hamilton
i have to write a persuasive essay and i am thinking about doing it on smoking in resteraunts. I am a non smoker and think this would be a benificail law to pass. Any one have any information for me? 🙂
amber hamilton
if anyone has some helpful information or insight you can email me and amish_camels@hotmail.com. i will appreciate it greatly.