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. […]
Collin
J, I don’t know about official sources, either, but I can confirm that the idea of reinstating the draft here is buzzing around. Seems like it’s being picked up by the political “Left” here as some sort of reverse-psychological bluff. The reasoning seems to go something like “Congress will be a lot more cautious about going to war if that means that their own children and grandchildren will be a part of the ground force.” So while the legislation predates the whole Iraq mess, the issue itself seems to be gaining some steam…
cgb
Captain Sunshine
Mornin’ –
I enjoy your site. I’ve sent a couple of people here for info on blogging software.
As for the draft:
If you go to http://www.sss.gov – the Selective Service homepage – there’s quite a bit of information on the infrastructure of the draft. For example:
–They’re restaffing all the county-based draft boards, with a target date of March or April of 2005. It’s this date that gives a lot of people on the Left the willies. The official explanation is that the draft board terms were for twenty years and everybody’s time is up.
–There is no more fleeing to Canada, since they’re “signed an agreement of return” if draftees hop it North.
–Conscientious objectors will now have to join the Army anyway, go through boot camp, and serve their enlistment in a “non-combat” role.
Other stories have uncovered the following possible changes to a new draft:
–The general draft will be for ages of 18 to 26, with a “special skills” draft for those ages 26 to 42 (or 44 – I forget).
–A draftee will make one-third the pay of a volunteer. Since an E-1 makes about $US 15000 per year, a drafted private won’t be living on much.
–A college deferment might only last until the end of a student’s currently enrolled semester, after which s/he would have to leave school and enlist.
One name you might want to look for is Charles Rangel, a Democratic congressman who introduced a bill to reinstate a draft with a focus specifically to draw from “all” youth and not just skewed to the lower- and middle-class youth for whom the armed forces are often a more appealing option financially. There was a second bill introduced by Republican congressmen, but I don’t remember who did it.
One comment on your new format – if you could make the comment entry text box larger, that would be great. On my machine it’s about four lines tall, and scrolling up and down is getting inconvenient for this (longer than I thought) post.
CS
Peter Drucker
My greatest strength as a consultant is to be ignorant and ask a few questions.