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. […]
Erik
i agree with you, the info meeting was out of the ordinary. It wan not boring, mostly cause you where standing. The problem with info meetings in position sitting is: tired, early in the morning, no coffe, get sleepy. Anyway, it was a good idea. I likes the way of doing it. Maybe it was because i was hungry, but you need both mental food and physicaly food to progress. I didnt get to know any of the lower grade students, but i got to know the masterstudent more than i used to. And i even found a space at the reading space, and went home 2 hours later than planed…….They say social integration is important! i concure.
By the way, there is some error with your size of post writing window. it gets inside the pink part of your site, so that you dont see what you write.
Jill
Oh, I’m glad you enjoyed it, Erik – and thanks for helping tidy up! Having a good social environment is really important, I think, for being happy and getting work done. I know from experience that it’s much more fun and satisfying to work on something when your friends are working on similar stuff. It would be very hard to complete an MA thesis alone…