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. […]
JosÈ Angel
Cheating is the game behind the game…
Wow- i’m the kind of guy who never cheats, but now I’ve got the theory, I’ll think twice about it.
Jill Walker Rettberg
There’s clearly an ethical difference in cheating to gain advantage against other players who aren’t cheating (that’s not cool) and cheating in a single-player game where the objective is for you to have fun – I totally endorse that kind of cheating 🙂
Tama
“Cheating” used to be built into games, too: I remember SimCity on the old Amiga 500 used to have codes to that would give your more money, but if you used the cheat more than 3 or 4 times, there was an Earthquake and your city was rubble anyway! Whole magazines used to be based around cheat codes!
That said, being a sibling game player, I don’t think quietly unplugging your sister’s joystick was quite what ‘cheating’ meant in the official sense! 😉
I can’t wait to read both of these books, or to hear Ian talk DAC!
Norman Hanscombe
Sadly, Jill, cheating in education is so entrenched that despite an ICAC Report in NSW highlighting organised cheating with HSC Assessments,and pointing out that nothing could be done, because the rules were so loose, everyone’s simply sticking their ostrich heads into the sand and doing nothing. This despite the fact that the marks involved can have enormous unfavourable consequences for those who haven’t cheated. I guess I’m just old fashioned?