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. […]
Matt
… until the author moves their server, hmmm?
Jose Angel
Well, luckily, old posts remain visible. Otherwise the moment might dwindle away into the moment (e.g. last hour’s post as no longer relevant, because here we’re living at the cutting edge of the present….) As a literature teacher, I tend to believe in the staying power of texts. Not all, of course, and not all the time, but blog posts are not an exception. So write to the moment, but the moment may be a keyhole opening up to a larger view.
Chuck
I’ve enjoyed watching some of my research ideas change over the course of several months, and archives are a big part of that. It’s also fascinating to see ideas recontextualized by other bloggers weeks (or even two years, in this case) later. Interesting to revisit some of these thoughts from many months ago.
Jill
It was interesting to me to realise that it was two years old AFTER first imagining it was quite new.
Oh, and yes, changing servers. Cough. I wrote this nice redirect that made all the old links work, but then I fixed it, thinking I was making it better, and I brooke it completely and can’t make it work again. That sucks and I promise to figure it out at some point…
Francois Lachance
Dr. Jill, I’m curious. By what series of pointers and links did you alight upon that particular Chutry Experiment entry? If you have the inclination and the time, a write up, please.
Jill
I can’t quite remember, FranÁois – oh, look, I managed to follow the path backwards for a while.
1. I think I clicked a link off the blogroll of Profgrrrl or New Kid or someone, anyway, I arrived at a blog I don’t think I’ve read before called World Enough and Time.
2. The newest post there that day quoted a post by George Williams (whose blog I do read quite often though not daily) and I liked the quote: “Getting stuck in the imagined narrative trajectory of your life can be intensely counterproductive. Author your way out of it and into another.” So I followed the link.
3. I didn’t notice while reading it, but that post, which introduces the “writing to the moment” idea, was from April 9, 2003. I read it with interest and looked at the comments. The first was a trackback from Chutry (who’s blog I also often read) that mentioned something Anne Galloway (whose blog I follow regularly for periods and then not for periods but I always seem to come back) had written about using blogs as research tools, and a student just asked me if I had any references to ideas about research blogging, so I followed the link.
4. That brought me to Chutry’s post, which I then blogged. I thought of also linking to George’s post but didn’t.
So there’s the trajectory for you. I wonder whether I was more likely to follow those particular links for already knowing the people who’d written. Well, not known, I’ve never met any of them, but I’m familiar with their blogs. Except the first one.