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. […]
Tom Henrik
Ahem. I said _almost_, didn’t I? 🙂
Jill
What, you still want the lecture? Damn.
😉
Ian
I think it’s probably me — maybe certainly — but I’ve never been able to use CSS styles to customize MT. I feel “not in control”…
So, I end up cracking open the templates and changing the HTML to do what I want. I wonder if it’s because I remember when CSS was first introduced, and how cool it was, and that it didn’t work on anything but that crappy IE 3browser, back when we all wanted IE to die, die, die instead of Netscape. So, I’m still a little surprised when even the simplest of CSS manoevers works right.
I think it’s a mental block.
Jill
Personally I find the default MT templates difficult to use with my own CSS, so I rewrite the HTML too.
I’m going to get the students to do that too. They’ll learn more from making their own. But it’s great to be able to quickly make SIMPLE changes, like switching font types or the background colours. Or swiping a whole new CSS template from MT’s collection 🙂
Alina
Of course we want lectures. But not yet, maybe. It’s always cool to play around in the jungle on your own. It’s only when you’re stuck you’ll want a guide!
Alina
Blog it!
Pr¯ver  forandre p denne her bloggen. Ikke s simpelt til  begynne med, og syns at forklaringene p Movable Type sin side er litt for innviklet, mens FAQ omfatter ikke halvparten av problemer og sp¯rsmÂl vi fÂr her. ?…