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. […]
Norman
Possibly most don’t dare comment on topics like this? The short answer is that although there are overlaps, male and female brains are different. Oooops. It slipped out.
Jill
Sure, and there’s also a huge amount of upbringing and cultural influence that affects the way men and women think and act. That still doesn’t answer why men every two or three months cry out “where are the women bloggers”, or “where are the women political bloggers” or “where are the women academic bloggers” just because their personal blogrolls don’t include many women, or because they don’t actually think of an academic blog that includes personal stuff as well as being academic, or of a feminist or anti-abortionist as being political. And as the post linked above says, the question itself is so androcentric. Which is fine if you’re a guy and admit that it’s the way you see the world (I don’t read women bloggers), but when presented as The Way The World Really Is (there are no women bloggers) it’s pretty annoying. To say the least.
Ah well. Oh, Clancy has a list of links to a lot of the discussions on “where are the women bloggers”, if you want proof of our exhaustingly often it’s discussed.