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. […]
torill
This is almost as thrilling as my big brother idea: collect a group of scholars, give them limited access to resources such as computers, paper and reading material in order to make them earn it, and then reward them with food, wine and different excesses for the best papers produced at intervals during the 100 days locked up in the bunker. Wouldn’t that be nasty and paranoid?
Jill
Wouldn’t this be a satisfying way of teaching, though? You would be QUITE SURE that the students weren’t wasting their time having fun or working for pay instead of writing their papers. You could walk past the cage every day or two to smile and wave, and yes, little rewards and some healthy competition for food, computer time and so on a la Survivor.
I know some MA students I might do this to if they’re not careful 😉
Elin
You know…. I’d do it! Wouldn’t it be liberating to have nothing but ONE thing to do – and at the end – you’d have your novel! And the dinner each night…it would be social?
Jill
Well, uh, but I’D GO MAD! I mean, yes, I like and need time alone but if I spend more than two days at home working with no adults and nothing but a phone call I get cabin fever. I dunno that a dinner a night would be enough.
I think you should volunteer!
Norman
Sadly we see this theatrical trivialisation of writing occurring at the same time that society moves increasingly to education systems which operate on the opposite approach. We encourage/permit/turn a blind eye to students who use others’ work and effort to gain “qualifications”. I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about an author’s work not being his own; but I do worry about the long term implications for Western Society, of large scale “legitimised cheating”.