Experts for the Media

Higher learning in the age of artificial intelligence isn’t about policing AI, but rather reinventing education around the new technology, says Chris Kanan, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Rochester and an expert in artificial intelligence and deep learning.

“The cost of misusing AI is not students cheating, it’s knowledge loss,” says Kanan. “My core worry is that students can deprive themselves of knowledge while still producing ‘acceptable work.’”

Kanan, who writes about and studies artificial intelligence, is helping to shape one of the most urgent debates in academia today: how universities should respond to the disruptive force of AI.

In his latest essay on the topic, Kanan laments that many universities consider AI “a writing problem,” noting that student writing is where faculty first felt the force of artificial intelligence. But, he argues, treating student use of AI as something to be detected or banned misunderstands the technological shift at hand.

“Treating AI as ‘writing-tech’ is like treating electricity as ‘better candles,’” he writes.

“The deeper issue is not prose quality or plagiarism detection,” he continues. “The deeper issue is that AI has become a general-purpose interface to knowledge work: coding, data analysis, tutoring, research synthesis, design, simulation, persuasion, workflow automation, and (increasingly) agent-like delegation.”

That, he says, forces a change in pedagogy.

What Higher Ed Needs to Do His essay points to universities that are “doing AI right,” including hiring distinguished artificial intelligence experts in key administrative leadership roles and making AI competency a graduation requirement.

Kanan outlines structural changes he believes need to take place in institutions of higher learning.

• Rework assessment so it measures understanding in an AI-rich environment. • Teach verification habits. • Build explicit norms for attribution, privacy, and appropriate use. • Create top-down leadership so AI strategy is coherent and not fractured among departments. • Deliver AI literacy across the entire curriculum. • Offer deep AI degrees for students who will build the systems everyone else will use. For journalists covering AI’s impact on education, technology, workforce development, or institutional change, Kanan offers a research-based, forward-looking perspective grounded in both technical expertise and a deep commitment to the mission of learning.

Connect with him by clicking on his profile.

With global attention on Venezuela following the U.S. removal of Nicolás Maduro, one of the central questions is whether taking out a leader actually changes the political system that put him in power.

Two University of Rochester political scientists — Hein Goemans and Gretchen Helmke — study different sides of this issue, and can shed light on why authoritarian regimes often survive even when leaders fall and what the U.S. intervention means for Venezuela and the world order.

Goemans specializes in how wars begin and end, regime survival, and why so-called “decapitation strategies” — removing a leader without dismantling the broader power structure — so often fail to produce stable outcomes. His research draws on cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to authoritarian regimes in Latin America.

In a recent interview with WXXI Public Media, Goemans warned that removing Maduro does not resolve the underlying system of military and economic control that sustained his rule. Without changes to those institutions, he said, power is likely to remain concentrated among the same elite networks.

“The problem isn’t just the leader,” Goemans explained. “It’s the structure that rewards loyalty and punishes defection. If that remains intact, the politics don’t fundamentally change.”

Helmke, a leading scholar of democracy and authoritarianism in Latin America, emphasizes that legitimacy, not just force, determines whether democratic transitions take hold.

Her research helps explain why democratic breakthroughs so often stall after moments of dramatic change, and why outside interventions can unintentionally weaken domestic opposition movements by shifting power toward regime insiders.

“When the institutions and elites remain in place, uncertainty — not democratic transition — often becomes the dominant political reality,” she said.

For journalists covering the fast-moving situation, Goemans and Helmke are available to discuss why removing leaders rarely brings the political transformation policymakers expect and what history suggests comes next. They can address:

• Why regime-change operations so often backfire, even when dictators are deeply unpopular
• What sidelining democratic opposition means for legitimacy
• Whether U.S. claims that Maduro is illegitimate hold up under international and U.S. law
• How prosecuting a foreign leader in U.S. courts could reshape norms of sovereignty
• The risks the U.S. intervention poses to the rules-based international order and NATO
• How interventions affect international norms, including sovereignty and the rule of law, and why short-term tactical successes can create long-term strategic risks.
• Why treating global politics as a series of “one-off” power plays misunderstands how states actually enforce norms over time
• How competing factions inside the U.S. administration may be driving incoherent foreign policy

Geomans also brings rare insight into the internal dynamics of U.S. policymaking, having taught and observed Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides who is helping shape the administration’s worldview. (Goemans taught Miller at Duke University in 2003.)

Click on the profiles for Goemans and Helmke to connect with them.

As interest in cryptocurrencies move from the fringes to mainstream conversation and public policy debate, Derek Mohr, clinical associate professor of finance at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester, offers a clear-eyed voice on the subject.

Mohr specializes in financial innovation and digital assets, and he’s been in demand with reporters looking to understand the economics behind everything from “Bitcoin-powered” home heaters to gas stations offering discounts for crypto purchases.

His message? Not everything that markets itself as a breakthrough actually adds up.

For instance, some companies have pitched devices that promise to heat a home using excess energy generated from bitcoin mining. Mohr recently told CNBC the idea might sound clever, but that its practicality collapses under basic financial and engineering realities.

“The bitcoin heat devices I have seen appear to be simple space heaters that use your own electricity to heat the room . . . which is not an efficient way to heat a house,” Mohr said. “Yes, bitcoin mining generates a lot of heat, but the only way to get that to your house is to use your own electricity.”

Bitcoin mining, he explained, has become so specialized that home computers have virtually zero chance of earning a mining reward. Industrial mining farms operate on custom-built chips far more powerful than any consumer device.

In other words, consumers who think they’re heating their homes and earning crypto are, in reality, just paying for electricity and getting no real mining benefit.

A pragmatic voice in a volatile space Mohr’s research and commentary help explain not just what is happening in the crypto world, but why it matters for consumers, businesses, and regulators. Whether evaluating the economics of mining or the viability of crypto payments, he brings a steady, analytical perspective to a domain dominated by hype and fast-moving news cycles.

For journalists covering cryptocurrency, fintech, and the future of financial transactions, Mohr is available for interviews on digital payments, bitcoin mining economics, crypto regulation, and emerging trends in financial technologies.

Top contact him, reach out to University of Rochester media relations liaison David Andreatta at david.andreatta@rochester.edu.