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. […]
HÂkon Styri
“Norwegians can stop laughing at the US voting system.”
Somehow , I still simper.
Jill
Oh dear.
James Bjerkholt
Michael Moore details (in “Stupid White Men”) dubious voting practices in Florida, and in particular that of “scrub-lists” in a fashion that make them sound so outrageous as to almost seem unreal. Depressingly, this article removed the reality distortion field.
Eirik
The Oslo result had a bitter aftertaste, to be sure. At least the Conservative Head Councillor can stop saying that the people of Oslo gave him a vote of confidence… On the other hand, we – like most other democracies – have other means to (supposedly) distribute power more evenly. For instance, votes from Northern Norway count for more than votes from Oslo. As the left has usually been stronger up north than here, I would think that total effect is less unfair than in Florida, for instance.
Reid
I don’t think we should stop laughing of the American voting system, I think we should just start to laugh of our own as well. When enough people laugh of their (…and other’s..) voting system, perhaps the serious grey men will start to laugh with us in the spirit of democracy-euphoria. Just a dream, I know.
non-voter
Well, I shall not say “What did I say?”, since I am only a _stupid_ non-voter who ruins democracy…
Norman
As far back as Socrates, less emotive thinkers were aware of the problems associated with the difficulties associated with democracy ever having a commonly shared, and meaningful definition. Socrates recognised the problem, which is why he was asked to drink hemlock.