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. […]
Chuck
I’ve done this a few times, usually when I’m way too distracted by grading or working on the book. I mostly chalk it up to being tired, but quite often it’s because I find the issue pretty important.
David Brake
What’s more frustrating is knowing you wrote something like what you want to write now earlier but you can’t remember what you wrote or where the text can be found so you have to write it again. At least in that case I tell myself that what I write now, informed by what I’ve read since then, will likely be better.
Jill Walker Rettberg
I suppose ideally we’d all be organised enough not to waste time in this way – but I think I’d still find ways of tricking myself into doing it…
Kjerstin
I like your take on things. It’s certainly true that when I blog things twice, it’s normally things that I’ve been turning over and over in my mind for a long time – another sign, I suppose, that it’s something I think is important. Perhaps a frequency analysis of my blog would be helpful in times when I feel the need to sort out my priorities 🙂