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. […]
Kate Pullinger
Hi Jill, we met at Incubation. I went to see ‘Fahrenheit 9?11’ last night and was alternately entertained, moved, and appalled. You are right about that ludicrous short-hand to the coalition sequence, but I also thought it was incredibly strange that he left Britain out of the picture completely. Maybe it really is true that, as far as Americans are concerned, the involvement of the UK in this war is of no consequence or importance – which somehow makes the whole thing even more depressing.
The most interesting bit for me when was Moore shows the marines recruiting very young men from the poorest of the poor in his hometown of Flint.
Jill
I know. It was a huge deal for Australia, too, to be involved, and all the more pointless to be involved in a stupid war to please big brother America when big brother doesn’t even care. Well, at least Australia got their free trade agreement with the US. Yee ha.
I guess the movie was very much made for an American audience. But it would be nice if someone as aware of the existence of other countries as Michael Moore would, well, realise that a lot of people in other countries will be watching this movie too.
Watching that sequence about how the army recruits the poor and the unemployed I for the first time almost felt happy that Norway simply has mandatory conscription of 18-year-old men. I suppose at least that’s fairer. Perhaps it actually makes us warier of going to war: almost every male in the country has been in the army. Of course, if I were male, and a Norwegian citizen, and 18, I’d be a conscientious objector, and I don’t like mandatory conscription – still, seeing Moore’s perspective on a professional army certainly made me wonder.
I’m looking forward to trying out your Breathing Wall, Kate. I still haven’t got the software and a windows machine in the same room (I have a mac at home) but I definitely will! It was great meeting you!
Anonymous
I know what you mean, Jill, but I’d argue that caricature has always been an essential part of Moore’s arsenal. He used it to brilliant effect in TV Nation and Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11 is no exception. Part of what makes his anti-Bush message so persuasive is precisely the element of parody/distortion/exaggeration (even Moore fans generally admit to the distortions.) Caricature is an incredibly effective political/creative tool, and no one does it better than Moore. Maybe the problem here is that he’s using it a little too indiscriminately?
I’d add that as an American, I see acid caricatures of the US every day (e.g., as a nation of power-mongering, obese, vulgar, jingoistic, oil-grubbing people). What’s interesting is that the source of these parodies isn’t always foreign–i.e., Americans have a healthy capacity to parody themselves–to take it as well as dish it. Moore is part and parcel of that tradition. Still, as a champion of the underdog, the disenfranchised, the less powerful, maybe he should have rethought the “coalition of the willing” sequence.
On F 9/11 as intended for a primarily US audience: I don’t think it is. Moore has toured Europe extensively to screen and discuss the film. One of the central messages he’s exporting is, as one pundit has put it, that “Americans are kind of crappy.”