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. […]
Geoff Cain
This is interesting looking. One of the reasons why Second Life is such a good place for educator’s is the amount of people on it NOT doing educational things there. SL has this huge population of people who are writing scripts and building objects all geared toward playing and communicating. The thin layer of education that exists in SL benefits from all of these people screwing around. We can take objects and techniques meant to make a UFO hover and create an educational simulation. I am all for open source — I think in the software industry, it is the life-blood of true innovation. I am wondering if the “educational” versions of SL (www.there.com) or this open source version will lose something by not having the connection to a seething undercurrent of gamers. I am not sure what “many problems” Tim is referring to, but I think the biggest problem with education in SL and other places like it are those educators who see SL as a place to reproduce the one-way, “sage on the stage” version of teaching. In that case, they will need an environment with fewer distractions. SL represents this great opportunity for role-playing and simulation and it is most often used as a place where avatars sit in a big room and watch someone give a Powerpoint presentation. Although transmitting information is important, there is so much more that can (and does) go on.