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. […]
Paul Lenz
Hi
I am one of the people behind WSYVF and just wanted to drop a quick reply.
In terms of objectivity we have tried exceptionally hard to be as objective as
possible, both in terms of our selection of issues and in the policy questions framed.
The question of bias in question structure has come up a few times, and to be honest
as the person who wrote the questions (so obviously biased, I admit) I don’t think
the phrasing has any impact on the way that a person would respond – pro/anti
id cards, house arrest, the Euro – the use of positive or negative question phrasing
is not going to make someone change their opinions about these things.
We go into some detail on the site as to how the results are calculated – the points
allocated range between -9 and 9 depending on the party stance and your stance
– strong views get strong points, and most of the questions have a range between
-6 and 6 – only where an issue is the cornerstone of a party philosophy can the rating
get as high as 9/-9.
Yes, it is a quiz, but silly, I would say no (but then I am biased) the whole aim
of the site is to highlight to the electorate that there are far more issues
at stake in the current UK election than the 3 or 4 that get discussed in the
national (especially tabloid) press. Do we intend for the site to make someone’s
decision for them? Absolutely not. Do we want the site to make them more interested
in the issues of this election, to go and read the manifestos themselves, to
discuss politics with friends, to, if it isn’t too grand, take their vote a bit
more seriously? Absolutely. From the feedback we have received this is what
a lot of people have been doing – even (in fact especially) the ones who disagree
with their result – to me that is great and makes the whole thing worth while.
Yes, the site is something of a blunt instrument; no, people shouldn’t base their
voting decision solely on an internet quiz, but if even 1% of the half million people
who have taken the quiz engage in the UK democratic process with more interest
than they did before then the whole thing will have been worth while.
Oh and yes, and you can trust us – we have no side, no motive, other than the ones
detailed above
Sorry if it sounds like a bit of a rant, but it’s late, and the last couple of weeks
have been a bit manic – roll on May 5th so that we can get some sleep
Take care
Paul
Jill
Thanks Paul. Actually, I quite liked the site, and found the questions chosen to be important ones and illuminating. It would worry me if people REALLY trusted a quiz like this with no other input, but that’s not likely to be the way many people use it. It does raise questions about what electronic democracy might be though – imagine if we simply had quizzes instead of elections? Perhaps in some ways it’d be a good idea, but there’d be a changes in the way we think about democracy and enlightened voting, anyway.
Perhaps the quiz should be seen as (among other things) a political game, like the ones at watercoolergames.org?
Paul Lenz
Hi Jill
Thanks for the reply – you are right to worry about people relying on the quiz
without any other input – touch wood no-one would, and we have tried to pitch
it as a quiz with a fun element (see out FAQ comments on the party leaders!).
One of the most striking things about this election is how many people are seeming
to be likely to be voting on personality/faith to deliver rather than on pure policy.
We have had feedback from left of centre, traditional labour voters who have found
that the Lib Dems have moved to the left of the party they traditioanlly support,
however they don’t find Kennedy credible as a leader and will vote for Blair.
They also worry about the Lib Dems lack of experience in power.
The idea of electronic democracy – possibly even on an issue by issue basis – is
one that has started to interested us as a result of this project and we are
knocking some ideas around. It is risky having vote on a soundbite without thinking
issues through, but then is it worse to elect a party that, on receiving the popular
mandate, can do more or less what it wants for five years irrespective of the views
of the electorate? Food for (longer-term) thought.
Take care
Paul