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. […]
Norman
I could be wrong, but I didn’t think Polo visited Java, only Sumatra? More importantly, the rhinoceros was known in Italy centuries earlier, so although it makes a delightful post modern tale, I’m inclined to question its veracity. The Sumatran rhino had two horns, which at least may provide an explanation of why Polo’s “discovery” needed to be transferred to Java?
Jill
Really? Oh dear. Another anecdote ruined by fact. What a sad demise… 😉
Norman
Never, Jill. In our postmodern world, surely “demise” applies only to things we don’t wish to believe?
Jill
Ah, so I can just keep right on believing this, then? Cool 🙂
Anders Fagerjord
Keep on believing, Jill!
At the time of Polo’s visit, Sumatra was a part of, depending on the year, either the Singhasari kingdom or the Majapahit kingdom, both based in Eastern Java. “Java” may be the name of the country, not the island.
Whether on Sumatra or Java, Polo described the unicorn he saw in a way we recognize as a rhinoceros, ending with the phrase “It is not true that it may be captured by a maiden. But it is the other way around.” At least, this is what Eco writes in Kant and the Platypus (Danish version, p.64), citing Marco Polo’s Millione, p. 143.
If it is true that the rhinoceros was known in “Italy” (a country that didn’t exist at the time) around 1000 A.D., I still think it is unlikely that Marco Polo ever heard of it. He lived two centuries before print, and zoology was not a big part of the schooling of a Venetian merchant’s son, I assume. Furthermore, Marco only lived in Venice until he was twelve, then he travelled to Cathay the first time. Returning three years later, he lived in Venice from he was fifteen to seventeen, then he embarked on the long journey.
That is the point in the story: what Polo thought he saw, when he saw an animal he hadn’t seen before. He categorized it according to his previous knowledge, which included unicorns, but apparently not rhinos. Even if all other Venetians laughed at him for not having heard of rhinos before, that was how he interpreted his encounter.