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. […]
fivecats
You’d think, wouldn’t you? Unfortunately, Americans are cursed with an amazingly short memory. This, too, will be forgotten soon enough.
Analyists I’ve listened to (on both sides of the fence) say that this year’s election in the US is likely to come down to only a few key states. Much of the country, despite what’s happened to jobs, the economy and with the war, are expected to vote exactly the same way they did in 2000.
This just stuns me.
I have a theory about America. European countries, Asian countries, Middle East countries, etc., have all been around for centuries. As such, the people there have a sense of time and place, a sense of their place in the long history of time that they are a a continuing part of. America has only been around for roughly 225 years. While the rest of the world is made up of older, more “mature” nations, the US is still in the Terrible Twos, throwing fits, rocks and sticks after having learned the power of being able to say “NO!”
We’d be much better off if an adult came by, took our big toys away from us and slapped us on the wrist with a “Bad Country!” and sent us to the corner for a Time Out.
…
Norman
Hate to rain on your picnic “fivecats”, but the U.S. was a nation before many of the countries you see as having been nations for a long time. There’s no shortage of historical atlases which will show what I mean.
As for Kerry defeating Bush, let’s hope there aren’t too many more revelations about discussions at meetings Kerry can’t “remember” attending, where the assassination of U.S. Senators was topic of the day?
achilleas
Though I don’t quite agree with “fivecats”, Norman’s response looks like an excelent example of a t.v. argument : officially correct, essentially irrelevant, and the kind of bonfire that avoids the issue and drives attention elsewhere (where ?).
Incidentally the notions of nation and state are different.
deena
I hate to say this, but…Americans will believe whoever spends the most on advertising. We are a pretty brainwashed bunch. And Bush has a war chest of over 150 million, whereas Kerry has very little to spend…
Any suggestions on political actions would be appreciated. I’m about to buy
50 Ways to Love Your Country
http://www.moveon.org/r?490
deena
I hate to say this, but…Americans will believe whoever spends the most on advertising. We are a pretty brainwashed bunch. And Bush has a war chest of over 150 million, whereas Kerry has very little to spend…
Any suggestions on political actions would be appreciated. I’m about to buy
50 Ways to Love Your Country
http://www.moveon.org/r?490
Norman
Sorry, Achilleas, for merely implying that perhaps it isn’t all over yet, instead of stating it more clearly. My use of “nation” rather than “country”, by the way, was because I felt that with its stronger connotations, it was more appropriate for discussions about how a group of inhabitants feel re the geographical locale in which they happen to live.
by all means use the less powerful word, “country” and diminish the strength of any bond; but the same reference to an historical atlas stands. few of the “ancient” countries you imply exist have any long established sense of identity which bound them together pre 1776, or whatever other date from which you choose to start.