What is Your Internet IQ in 2025?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH USING AI
YOUR INTERNET IQ in 2025
ECP NetHappenings Open AI is beyond the cost of employees.
ECP NetHappenings the secret doomsday escape plans of AI billionaires.
ECP NetHappenings Open AI is beyond the cost of employees.
ECP NetHappenings Elon Musk’s xAI breaking its promise to MEMPHIS
THE INTERNET WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN 1991
IN 1991 ALL CIVILIANS WERE ALLOWED ONLINE
1993 BUSINESS WAS ALLOWED TO PUT THEIR WEBSITES UP ONLINE
K12 STARTED TO BUY COMPUTERS AND PUT THEM IN SCHOOLS FROM THE MID 1990s and made Microsoft and Apple rich off the backs of the nations tax payers.
From 1991 – 15 Years go by then ….
What is Your Internet IQ in 2025?
Colleges look to test Internet IQ 2005
Students need to know more than just text-messaging, professors say 2005 AP Copyright
LONG BEACH, Calif. – Students apply to college online, e-mail their papers to their professors and, when they want to be cheeky, pass notes in class by text-messaging.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean they have a high Internet IQ.
“They’re real comfortable instant-messaging, downloading MP3 files. They’re less comfortable using technology in ways that require real critical thinking,” says Teresa Egan of the Educational Testing Service.
Or as Lorie Roth, assistant vice chancellor of academic programs at California State University puts it: “Every single one that comes through the door thinks that if you just go to Google and get some hits — you’ve got material for your research paper right there.”
That’s why Cal State and a number of other colleges are working with ETS to create a test to evaluate Internet intelligence, measuring whether students can locate and verify reliable online information and whether they know how to properly use and credit the material.
“This test measures a skill as important as having mathematics and English skills when you come to the university,” says Roth. “If you don’t come to the university with it, you need to know that you are lacking some skills that educated people are expected to have.”
A preliminary version of the new test, the Information and Communication Technology Literacy Assessment, was given to 3,300 Cal State students this spring to see how well it works, i.e. testing the test. Individual scores aren’t being tallied but campuses will be getting aggregate reports.
Next year, the test is expected to be available for students to take on a voluntary basis.
Cal State is the lead institution in a consortium which includes UCLA, the University of Louisville, the California Community College System, the University of North Alabama, the University of Texas System and the University of Washington.
Some of the institutions involved are considering using the test on incoming students to see if they need remedial classes, says Egan, ETS’ project manager for the Information and Communication Technology Literacy Assessment. Other schools are thinking about giving the test as a follow up to communications courses to gauge curricula efficiency.
Robert Jimenez, a student at Cal State-Fullerton who took the prototype test this spring, gives it a passing grade. “It was pretty good in that it allowed us to go ahead and think through real-life problems.”
Sample questions include giving students a simulated page of Web search results on a particular subject and asking students to pick the legitimate sources. So, a question on bee sting remedies presents a choice of sites ranging from ads to a forum for herb treatments to (the correct answer) a listing from the National Institutes of Health, identifiable by having “nih” in the URL (site address) along with the “.gov” suffix that connotes an official government listing.
High tech has been a fixture of higher ed for some years.
A 2002 report from the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 79 percent of college Internet users thought the Internet had a positive impact on their academic experience.
More than 70 percent used the Internet more than the library and 56 percent said e-mail improved their relationships with professors.
Of course, some of those text-messaging students are still being taught by professors whose idea of a personal data assistant is a fresh pad of Post-Its.
“The problem with technology and education is how do you fit the new technology into existing curriculum lesson plans. You can’t add more class time and it’s much easier to just keep teaching the way you were,” says Steve Jones, a co-author on the Pew study and a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Jones folds lessons on Internet use into his classes. And he doesn’t mince words about students who try the “click, copy and paste” approach to homework.
“I tell the students, ‘Some of you are going to put off this paper until the night before. You’re going to go to Google, type in search words and just look at the top five hits and use those. I’m going to grade you on this. I’m going to look at these sources and so let’s talk about how to evaluate sources.'”
Which doesn’t necessarily mean they all “suddenly become fabulous information evaluators and seekers, but it gives them a little bit of an idea that this isn’t something that’s apart from learning.”
Jones also finds himself learning from students, who are trying out new things like blogs and collaborating with other students online to create new sources of information.
He thinks assessing students’ Internet skills could be useful in figuring out ways to help them do better research but cautions that it’s tough to test on something as changeable as the Internet.
Roth notes that the bulk of the assessment focuses on critical thinking skills, being able to analyze the legitimacy of Web sites, and knowing the difference between properly cited research and plagiarism, things that “haven’t changed very much since I enrolled in college in 1969.”
For today’s students, working on the Net means not having the safety net of references vetted by campus librarians.
But Roth isn’t nostalgic.
“Anybody want to go back to the bad old days when you had manual typewriters, and you had to get up and walk to the library to look up something?” she says with a laugh. “I don’t think so.”
Elias Al @iam_elias1
OpenAI just admitted it might not be able to pay its own bills.
Not to journalists. Not to regulators. Not to investors.
To its own executives. Behind closed doors.
On April 28, 2026, the Wall Street Journal published a story that every AI investor, every enterprise customer, and every competitor had been quietly watching for. OpenAI’s Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar told other company leaders that she is worried the company might not be able to pay for future computing contracts if revenue doesn’t grow fast enough.
The CFO of the most famous AI company in the world is privately telling her colleagues she does not know if they can pay their bills.
Here is the full picture of what is actually happening.
OpenAI has fallen short of its goals for new users and revenue in recent months. ChatGPT growth slowed in late 2025. OpenAI fell short of an internal goal to reach 1 billion weekly active users by year-end. Subscriber defections were reported.
Then 2026 made it worse.
OpenAI missed multiple monthly revenue targets in early 2026, losing ground to Google’s Gemini in consumer markets and to Anthropic in coding and enterprise.
The company that defined the generative AI market is no longer the revenue leader in it.
Anthropic crossed $30 billion in annualized revenue in April while spending roughly a quarter of what OpenAI spends on training — turning what was a comfortable lead into a deficit.
And here is where this becomes genuinely alarming.
OpenAI has committed to spend approximately $600 billion on building data centers in the coming years. The original commitment was $1.4 trillion. They revised it downward. They are still missing the targets needed to justify what remains.
The company expects to burn through that amount in the next three years — and that is assuming it meets ambitious revenue targets.
Targets it is currently missing.
Friar wants more discipline over spending, which has caused disagreement with CEO Sam Altman.
Then Altman sent out a company-wide memo. In his own words: “A lot of the things that we do that look weird — buying huge amounts of compute while our revenue is relatively small.”
The CEO of OpenAI described his own company’s strategy as looking weird.
Board directors are now scrutinizing recent data center deals and questioning Altman’s efforts to secure even more computing power despite weakening revenue.
The shortfall sits awkwardly against OpenAI’s $250 billion Azure commitment, its newly opened distribution on AWS and Google Cloud, and a planned IPO at roughly a $1 trillion valuation.
A $1 trillion IPO. Planned. While missing revenue targets. While the CFO privately questions whether they can pay their computing bills. While the CEO admits the strategy looks weird.
OpenAI’s response to the Journal was two words: “This is ridiculous.”
Then the markets responded.
AI-linked stocks dropped immediately. Oracle. Nvidia. Every company whose revenue depends on OpenAI continuing to spend hundreds of billions on infrastructure saw its share price fall within hours of the story publishing.
The market did not find it ridiculous.
Here is the strategic reality nobody at OpenAI wants to say out loud.
The company that invented ChatGPT. That launched the AI arms race. That forced every major technology company on earth to pivot overnight. Is now losing the enterprise market to Anthropic. Losing the consumer market to Google. Committed to $600 billion in compute spending. And its own CFO does not know if the revenue will arrive in time to cover it.
The real issue is whether OpenAI’s $600 billion in compute commitments can be justified when Anthropic has overtaken it in revenue, its own CFO has questioned the IPO timeline, and growth is slowing against competitors.
The AI gold rush created the most valuable technology companies in history.
It also created the most expensive infrastructure commitments in history.
And the company at the center of it all just admitted — quietly, internally, and then through four major news organizations simultaneously — that the math may not work.
OpenAI started the AI revolution.
Their own CFO is not sure they can afford to finish it.
Source: Wall Street Journal · Fortune · CNBC · Reuters · The Next Web · April 28, 2026