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. […]
Martin
It would very much so have required a warrant.
Ken
Actually, no time would have been lost. FISA allows the government 72 hours to apply surveillance measures before notifying a judge. But Martin is right, the government must still eventually gain a warrant.
Jill
Boing Boing links to discussions suggesting this might be a hoax.
Martin
But wouldn’t they have to have a warrant to extract the information from the library, even under
FISA? The 72 hours thing would only apply if they could the information without going through
the library database, right?
Jess
Such a pity Bush still has three years left.
Not if Congress gets with the program.
Because he didn’t get rid of that law. He just ignored it.
I wish I could make a Johnnie Cochran-style rhyme on “if the President commits a felony, you must impeach.” It would catch on like wildfire, I bet.
Martin
“If prez didn’t practice what he preached
then you must impeach!”
Elin
Odd, for they’re using the names of real people. I doubt that any professor would have a hoax like that tied to his name!
Eric
It turns out that the student made the story up. Someone posted a link to a story, from the Boston paper I think, on my site. In this case, I’m glad that the story turned out to be false. I just wonder what the student’s motives were?
KDS
In an update, Badger (http://badbadbadger.blogspot.com/2005/12/terrified-yet.html) writes that the story was a hoax. I’m sure many people who read the original story will never find out about the hoax. With cross-posting and quoting in blogs, false stories may lead their own lives and become urban legends.
FHM
If I could choose between Bush and Kristin Halvorsen, I would take Bush anytime…