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. […]
David Weman
You’re arguably tech blogs, though your blog is harder case to argue. But what you and she do professionally count as tech in my mind.
also, we didn’t get any nominations for taht category, and I don’t read all that many european tech blogs. somewhat surprised i came up with five good sites.
Norman
Congrats, good luck and adios, Jill. I’ve enjoyed your blog for some time now; but it has become [from the perspective of an I.T. neandertahsl like myself]a tad technical. Keep on with the technical side, but continue to keep in mind the major role of high quality, precise, and clearly understood language in all that’s worthy of being described as intelligent analysis.
achilleas
Congrats for the nomination. I wouldn’t consider your blog as a tech one though. I’ve tagged you as web research in delicious, and the same applies for Anders and Torill. Some of the comments are tech indeed but not most of the posts. Maybe what the Satin pyjamas meant is “academic”.
William Wend
Congrats! Your blog is, by far, my favorite blog on the net.
Liz
Congrats! I have to agree with William, your blog is my favourite. It has inspired me to do research, and most likely do a Master on a blogging related topic.
Jill
Thanks guys! That’s so cool, Liz, that you’ve been inspired to do what you want (I hope research makes you happy!) Achilleas, I like the idea of tech being a possible pseudonym for “academic”… hm.