White House AI Education Initiative: Tech Giants Pledge for an AI-Ready Generation

  • Thread Author
Silicon Valley’s top executives converged at the White House on September 4, 2025, to publicly endorse the First Lady’s AI education initiative — a high-profile meeting that fused corporate pledges, government policy ambitions, and the politics of technology into a single, consequential moment for America’s AI future.

Background​

The White House meeting built on an executive order titled Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, which sets a federal agenda to integrate AI literacy and skills into K–16 and postsecondary education. The order directs a White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education to coordinate public‑private partnerships, identify federal resources, and accelerate teacher training and curriculum development. The First Lady’s initiative — framed publicly as the Presidential AI Challenge and the “Pledge to America’s Youth” — invited technology companies, nonprofits, and academic institutions to commit resources and programs over the next several years to help produce an “AI‑ready” generation.
This event was notable both for the scale of industry participation and for its timing: it occurred amid heightened regulatory pressure on large tech firms, ongoing antitrust litigation, and a political climate in which tech‑industry relationships with the federal government have strategic importance for both sides. The meeting combined pledges of cash, cloud credits, training programs, and product access with a visible show of cooperation between Silicon Valley and the administration.

What happened at the White House​

The gathering featured senior leaders from multiple major technology firms — including chief executives and top representatives from Microsoft, Google, Apple, OpenAI, and several other companies — who voiced support for the First Lady’s AI education agenda and announced a slate of commitments aimed at students, teachers, and job seekers.
Key public commitments announced at the meeting include:
  • Microsoft: A package of education‑focused commitments that includes making Microsoft 365 Personal (with Copilot) available free to U.S. college students for a limited period, expanded access plans for K–12 through its Microsoft Elevate program, educator grants tied to the Presidential AI Challenge, and a broad slate of LinkedIn Learning AI courses and community‑college certification support.
  • OpenAI: Launch plans for expanded training and certification programs — including a commitment to certify a large number of Americans in AI skills by 2030 — and an employment platform concept aimed at connecting trained workers with employers.
  • Google: A multi‑year investment to support colleges, universities, and nonprofits with AI training, cloud credits, and career certificates intended to scale AI fluency across campuses and workforce programs.
  • Several other firms and non‑profits signed pledges under the White House “Pledge to America’s Youth” framework to supply curricula, teacher training, cloud credits, and mentorship resources.
The President offered public praise for attending CEOs and emphasized governmental support for building AI infrastructure, including measures to ease permitting and expand power capacity for data centers. Notably, the Tesla CEO did not attend in person and was represented by a delegate, a conspicuous absence given Tesla’s high profile in the U.S. tech ecosystem.

Overview: the corporate pledges and what they actually say​

Microsoft’s commitments — what’s confirmed and what’s not​

Microsoft’s publicly announced commitments centered on expanding access to Copilot and Microsoft 365 for students and educators, scaling LinkedIn Learning AI content, supporting community colleges with AI training, and offering educator grants under the Presidential AI Challenge.
  • Microsoft confirmed a program to provide Microsoft 365 Personal (including Copilot) free for a defined trial period to U.S. college students, with enrollment windows and eligibility verification required.
  • The company also rolled out teacher support, grants for outstanding educators, and large numbers of free LinkedIn Learning AI courses and pathways intended to help students and job seekers build AI skills.
  • Some media reports have circulated larger dollar figures attributed to Microsoft’s overall education investments. Those headline numbers vary across outlets and, in several cases, are higher than amounts listed in Microsoft’s own public statements about the White House pledges. The precise multi‑year dollar total for Microsoft’s education and public‑sector AI programs remains best interpreted through Microsoft’s official announcements and program pages rather than through second‑hand summaries.

OpenAI’s training and employment plans​

OpenAI announced the expansion of its training offerings and a plan to roll out certifications and an employment‑matching platform. The company stated a goal to train and certify millions of Americans in AI skills by 2030 and highlighted partnerships with large employers to validate and adopt the certification pathways.
  • OpenAI’s plan frames certifications as multi‑level credentials — from basic workplace AI fluency to advanced roles like prompt engineering and AI custom‑job skills.
  • The intent is to combine product‑embedded learning pathways with external certification so that employers can validate applicants’ AI skillsets.

Google’s $1 billion education commitment​

Google pledged a multi‑year, $1 billion effort to support AI education and job training in the United States, with a focus on providing cloud credits, curriculum, career certificates, and support to accredited, nonprofit colleges and universities.
  • The program includes free access to certain AI tools and learning pathways for eligible students and nonprofit educational institutions.
  • Google’s commitment also covers grants and cloud credits to universities to support AI coursework, research, and hands‑on training.

Why the tech industry showed up: strategic motivations​

The White House event must be read both as a policy moment and as political theater. Several strategic incentives drove corporate participation:
  • Regulatory positioning: Public cooperation on priority issues such as workforce training helps shape the narrative around Big Tech as a partner in national competitiveness rather than an adversary — a useful counterbalance amid antitrust litigation and regulatory scrutiny.
  • Market and talent development: Investments in AI literacy and certification expand the hiring pipeline for AI‑capable talent and can accelerate adoption of vendor ecosystems across universities and schools.
  • Goodwill and access: Direct engagement with the White House can yield operational benefits, such as expedited permitting, infrastructure support, and favorable procurement arrangements for cloud and enterprise services.
  • Competitive differentiation: Publicly pledging educational dollars or product access generates positive publicity and can lock in longer‑term institutional relationships with schools and public agencies.
These incentives create a strong alignment between corporate interests and the administration’s policy goals, but they also raise questions about balance, influence, and the distribution of public value.

Critical analysis — strengths, promises, and immediate upsides​

  • Rapid scaling of AI skills
    The corporate commitments promise fast, large‑scale access to AI learning materials, micro‑credentials, and tool access. If executed well, these programs can increase baseline AI literacy among students and workers and tighten the pipeline for AI‑fluent hires.
  • Infrastructure and capacity support
    Industry willingness to collaborate on permitting, power, and data‑center siting could materially ease bottlenecks that slow deployment of advanced AI services — important if governments intend to rely on domestic compute capacity.
  • Public‑private operational experience
    Partnerships between tech companies and community colleges, universities, and non‑profits can accelerate proof‑of‑concept projects that bring working examples of AI‑enhanced teaching and service delivery to classrooms and public agencies.
  • Education access and inclusivity, in theory
    Programs that explicitly include community colleges and public university systems can reach students who are traditionally underserved by elite private‑sector training programs, potentially widening participation.

Key risks, concerns, and political tradeoffs​

  • Regulatory capture and influence
    Large, sustained corporate involvement in public education initiatives raises legitimate concerns about undue vendor influence over curricula, procurement, and standards. Close partnerships are useful, but they must be counterbalanced by independent oversight and procurement rules that protect public interest.
  • Unequal bargaining power and vendor lock‑in
    If public institutions adopt vendor‑specific tools and learning pathways en masse, they can become locked into particular cloud and software ecosystems. This increases switching costs for schools and may crowd out open‑source or multi‑vendor solutions that could be more appropriate for some contexts.
  • Data privacy and student protection
    Deploying AI tools in schools amplifies privacy and safety issues for minors. Student data flows, model training datasets, and the use of personalized learning agents must be governed by clear rules and robust technical protections.
  • Quality and credential validity
    Rapidly produced certifications and training programs can vary wildly in rigor. Without transparent standards and third‑party assessment, employer recognition of vendor‑issued credentials could be inconsistent, limiting the programs’ real value for workers.
  • Political optics and polarization
    The spectacle of tech CEOs publicly aligning with a highly partisan administration risks deepening public skepticism. For companies working on broad consumer trust, visible partisanship can damage reputational capital among employees, customers, and global partners.
  • Workforce displacement and uneven benefits
    The same AI tools being taught and rolled out may accelerate automation and displace certain jobs even as they create new ones. Policymakers must design transition supports, upskilling, and safety nets to avoid concentrated harms.

Infrastructure, permitting, and the hidden logistics of scaling AI​

Serious AI training, model hosting, and enterprise deployment depend on physical infrastructure — GPUs, power, cooling, and network connectivity — that sits in data centers. A few practical considerations emerge:
  • Power capacity: Expanding compute at scale requires grid upgrades and, often, new substations. Public‑sector facilitation of power permits can materially lower build times for new AI infrastructure.
  • Permitting and local approvals: Data‑center construction faces local zoning and environmental reviews; streamlined federal or state processes can reduce friction but must maintain environmental safeguards.
  • Supply chain and chip access: Long lead times for advanced accelerators and memory mean that policy support for domestic semiconductor capacity and diversified supply chains remains essential.
  • Edge and school hardware: Equitable access requires not only cloud credits but also devices and connectivity for students in underserved regions, which calls for broadband and device subsidy programs.
If infrastructure commitments are implemented transparently and equitably, they can unlock meaningful gains. If not, the benefits risk concentrating in well‑resourced regions while leaving rural and disadvantaged communities behind.

Education and workforce impact — what the pledges could deliver in practice​

  • Short‑term: Free or subsidized tool access (such as Copilot or Google AI suites) and a surge of online courses and certificates can quickly boost awareness and basic skills among students and job seekers.
  • Medium‑term: Accredited certificate pathways, community college partnerships, and employer adoption of vendor credentials could translate into measurable job placements and career transitions.
  • Long‑term: If certification standards converge and credits transfer across institutions, these programs could integrate into lifelong learning pathways that sustain worker mobility in an AI‑driven economy.
However, realizing those outcomes hinges on program quality, clear alignment to real employer needs, and the creation of transparent bridges between certification and hiring pipelines. Otherwise, the result could be credential inflation without commensurate gains in employability.

The politics of attendance and notable absences​

The optics of the meeting mattered as much as the pledges. Attendance by a cluster of Silicon Valley CEOs signals a renewed effort by tech leaders to mend or strengthen ties with the administration after fraught relations in prior years. For the administration, hosting corporate leaders offers a way to demonstrate bipartisan or cross‑sector momentum for a policy priority.
Yet the event also highlighted rifts: a major automotive and energy‑oriented tech CEO was represented but did not attend in person, signaling unresolved tensions between certain high‑profile technology entrepreneurs and the administration. That absence was widely noted and interpreted as signposting the limits of consensus in the tech community.

Verifiability and numbers to watch — what to treat cautiously​

Several large dollar figures circulated in coverage and commentary after the meeting. Readers should treat aggregated headline numbers with caution unless they are explicitly confirmed by company filings or official program pages. Examples:
  • Precise multi‑year corporate pledges vary across public statements and news accounts. Companies typically publish program pages that describe what they will provide; the claimed total dollar value of in‑kind services (cloud credits, software access, educational content) is often an estimate and can differ from third‑party reporting.
  • Some media accounts aggregated multiple corporate commitments into single headline dollar totals. Those aggregations can misrepresent the structure of pledges (e.g., cash grants vs. in‑kind cloud credits vs. product trial access).
  • Independent auditing and tracking mechanisms for these pledges are limited unless the White House or an independent body establishes a monitoring framework. For long‑term public accountability, transparent reporting on program uptake, student outcomes, and spending flows will be essential.
In short: commitments are real, but their long‑term impact depends on follow‑through, measurement, and independent oversight.

What this means for Windows users, IT teams, and enterprise customers​

  • Windows and Microsoft ecosystem administrators should prepare for broader Copilot‑enabled workflows in education and government deployments. That includes planning for updated endpoint security, identity governance, and user‑training needs as AI features proliferate across Microsoft 365.
  • IT procurement teams in education should insist on interoperability language, data portability, and exit clauses in vendor agreements to reduce future vendor lock‑in risk.
  • Enterprise security and privacy teams must establish model governance, data minimization, and access controls for AI tools used with student and citizen data.
  • Developers and ISVs focused on the Windows platform and desktop productivity can expect increased demand for Copilot integrations, plugin development, and education‑centric extensions — but they should prioritize accessibility, explainability, and compliance.

Recommendations and guardrails policymakers and institutions should adopt​

  • Transparent reporting and auditing — Establish independent tracking of corporate pledges that reports on deliverables, timelines, and measurable student or employment outcomes.
  • Open standards for credentials — Promote interoperable, competency‑based standards for AI certifications so employers can compare and accept credentials across vendors.
  • Data protection rules for education — Enact clear, enforceable rules for data collection, retention, and usage when AI tools are used with minors, including model‑training restrictions.
  • Vendor‑agnostic procurement — Encourage multi‑vendor or open‑source approaches for curriculum and tooling to reduce long‑term dependence and preserve competition.
  • Funding for devices and broadband — Pair corporate tool pledges with robust public investment in devices and broadband so that benefits reach underserved populations.

Conclusion​

The White House meeting and the First Lady’s AI initiative mark a pivotal moment in U.S. AI policy: the federal government has successfully drawn major technology firms into a shared public agenda on AI education and workforce readiness. The pledges — expanded product access, training programs, certifications, and grant funding — offer a genuine opportunity to accelerate AI literacy and create pathways into the next economy.
Yet this cooperation is not without meaningful risks. The potential for regulatory capture, vendor lock‑in, uneven geographic distribution of benefits, and privacy harms must be taken seriously. The hard work begins now: translating headline commitments into verifiable outcomes, imposing robust accountability and privacy guardrails, and ensuring that the benefits of AI education are equitably distributed across the country.
For IT professionals, educators, and policymakers, the imperative is clear: embrace the opportunities these programs offer, but demand transparent implementation metrics, insist on interoperable standards, and build protective policies that shield students and workers from unintended harms. Public‑private collaboration can move the needle on skills and infrastructure, but only if it is governed in the public interest and matched with the institutional capacity to measure results.
Source: AInvest Silicon Valley CEOs Endorse First Lady's AI Initiative at White House
 
Click to expand...
President Trump convened a who’s‑who of Silicon Valley and corporate America for a high‑profile dinner at the White House on September 4, 2025, where CEOs and founders from Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Google/Alphabet, and OpenAI sat across the State Dining Room and publicly discussed sweeping investment pledges, AI education initiatives, and shared operational priorities for national tech infrastructure.

Background​

The evening event followed a White House‑led push on artificial‑intelligence education and workforce skilling that included a presidential task force on AI education and a public “Pledge to America’s Youth” framework intended to marshal private resources for school and college programs. The public stage for the dinner was part policy convening and part political theater: the First Lady’s education initiative provided a policy anchor while the president used the platform to press executives on concrete investment numbers and the administration’s capacity to expedite infrastructure and permitting.
The meeting was originally planned for an outdoor Rose Garden reception but moved indoors to the State Dining Room because of inclement weather. The guest list read like an industry snapshot: Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Tim Cook (Apple), Bill Gates (Microsoft co‑founder), Sam Altman (OpenAI), Sundar Pichai and Sergey Brin (Google/Alphabet), Satya Nadella (Microsoft CEO), and a number of other CEOs, founders and infrastructure executives were present. Elon Musk did not attend in person and was represented by a delegate, a conspicuous absence that drew immediate attention.

What was announced — and what was actually said​

The headline figures and their context​

At the table, President Trump asked successive company leaders how much they were investing in the United States. Public, on‑the‑record replies in the room included Mark Zuckerberg stating Meta would invest “at least $600 billion” and Tim Cook attributing a similar multi‑hundred‑billion figure to Apple’s U.S. plans. Sundar Pichai gave a multi‑year number for Google that reached roughly $250 billion, and Microsoft’s leaders framed their U.S. investments as roughly $75–80 billion annually. These numbers were reported live by multiple news teams present at the event.
It is essential to treat those table‑side figures as verbal statements of intent rather than binding contractual commitments. Many of the large sums discussed were framed as multi‑year, cumulative investments or as estimates that aggregate cash, in‑kind services (cloud credits, software and curriculum access), and potential supplier commitments. Several outlets and White House summaries emphasized that the public moment was a signaling exercise: companies were demonstrating willingness to expand U.S. activity, and the administration was signaling support (permitting, power capacity, and procurement) to facilitate that expansion.

Verifiable programmatic commitments at the meeting​

Not all the headline figures were mere rhetoric: several concrete, programmatic commitments were presented or reaffirmed in formal company materials around the White House convening:
  • Microsoft confirmed an education package that included making Microsoft 365 Personal (which bundles Copilot) available free to U.S. college students for a limited enrollment period, expanded K–12 access programs, educator grants tied to the Presidential AI Challenge, and extensive LinkedIn Learning AI pathways. These program pages and corporate posts were later published by Microsoft.
  • OpenAI announced an expansion of training offerings and an OpenAI Academy‑style certification commitment with a public target to certify a large number of Americans in AI skills by 2030 and to create employment‑matching pathways connecting certified learners with employers. These details were summarized in OpenAI’s public statements.
  • Google reportedly pledged a multi‑year $1 billion investment focused on AI education, cloud credits, career certificates and university support for curriculum and research.
  • Apple expanded public materials around a major U.S. investment push and an American Manufacturing Program intended to reshore or deepen supply‑chain and silicon-related manufacturing commitments in the United States. Apple and White House materials were issued separately to document these claims.
Each program element listed above has at least an initial public confirmation or company press material associated with it, but the scope, timing, and accounting treatment of these commitments vary and will be clarified (or not) in subsequent filings, MOUs, or program pages.

Why this gathering matters: policy, markets, and public trust​

A rare alignment of labor‑market, infrastructure and regulatory incentives​

The White House convening matters because it aligns three levers that shape the next phase of U.S. AI capacity:
  • Workforce and skilling: Big tech’s pledges to expand certifications, curricula, and free access to tools can accelerate the supply of AI‑literate talent—if those programs are high quality and broadly accessible.
  • Infrastructure buildout: Data‑center siting, grid capacity, and permitting were explicitly on the agenda; faster approvals and power investments materially alter the economics of cloud and AI infrastructure.
  • Procurement and industrial policy: The administration positioned procurement and government partnerships as tools to encourage on‑shore investment and to strengthen domestic semiconductor and manufacturing capacity. Examples discussed publicly included use of CHIPS Act funds and other instruments to favor domestic buildouts.
For industry, aligning these levers reduces friction for large capex projects and helps scale ecosystems (platforms, developer tools, certified hardware). For government, visible private‑sector pledges provide political cover and a tangible narrative of competitiveness. For the public, these ties raise questions about influence, oversight, and the distribution of benefits.

Political optics and reputational risk​

The optics of high‑profile tech executives dining with a partisan administration are not neutral. For many companies, alignment with the federal government can bring operational benefits (faster permits, priority procurement), but it can also trigger reputational risks with employees, customers, and global partners who expect corporate independence from political partisanship. The conspicuous absence of Elon Musk and his public falling‑out with the administration underscored that the technology sector is not monolithic in its political orientation.

Critical analysis: strengths, limits, and red flags​

Strengths and genuine upside​

  • Scale and reach: If executed responsibly, the combination of corporate courseware, cloud credits, and certification programs could accelerate AI literacy broadly, benefiting students, educators, and mid‑career workers who need rapid reskilling.
  • Infrastructure acceleration: Government willingness to prioritize permitting and grid upgrades in exchange for investment commitments could materially shorten the lead time for data‑center projects, enabling faster deployment of AI services and regional economic development.
  • Public‑private operational capacity: Partnerships that pair private platforms with community colleges and non‑profits can produce practical pilots and scalable templates for curriculum, credentialing and hiring pipelines.

Limits and important caveats​

  • Verifiability of headline numbers: The multi‑hundred‑billion dollar figures announced in the dining room should be read as intent signals rather than legally binding budgets. Some outlets and White House summaries aggregated in‑kind services (cloud credits, software access) with cash outlays to produce headline totals. Independent confirmation requires company filings, supplier contracts, or formal MOUs.
  • Credential quality risk: Rapidly produced certifications without third‑party validation can produce credential inflation. The labor‑market value of vendor‑issued certificates depends on assessment rigor, employer recognition, and transparent standards. Open standards and independent assessment will determine real employability outcomes.
  • Vendor lock‑in and procurement concentration: Vendor‑specific tool donations and curriculum can entrench single‑vendor ecosystems in public education and government procurement, raising switching costs and diminishing competition in the medium term. Procurement language and clauses that preserve portability and interoperability are essential.
  • Data privacy and student protections: Deploying cloud‑based AI tools in K–12 and higher education raises acute questions about data collection, retention, and the use of student data to train models. Robust, enforceable guardrails are needed to prevent secondary uses and to protect minors.
  • Regulatory capture and influence: Close collaboration without independent oversight risks skewing curricula, standards, and procurement toward corporate priorities rather than public interest goals. Mechanisms for transparency, auditing, and accountability must accompany any large partnership.

How this affects Windows users, IT teams, and enterprise customers​

Immediate operational impacts​

  • Increased Copilot footprint in education and government: Microsoft’s expanded student Copilot access and OneGov procurement moves suggest faster adoption of Copilot features across education and public sector tenants. Administrators should prepare for changes in licensing, identity provisioning, and endpoint management.
  • Identity and access emphasis: Wider Copilot adoption increases reliance on Entra ID/Azure AD identities for access control and conditional access policies. IT teams must enforce multi‑factor authentication, monitor service principals, and refine least‑privilege policies to limit data exposure.
  • Data governance and model risk: Organizations integrating vendor AI features must formalize model governance—data minimization, retention schedules, audit trails, and usage restrictions—to mitigate leakage or misuse of sensitive information. Expect new procurement clauses and security baseline requirements.

Practical steps for IT leaders and administrators​

  • Audit current vendor contracts for portability, data use, and termination clauses.
  • Update identity and conditional‑access policies to cover Copilot and other AI agents.
  • Build or update an AI model governance playbook that defines acceptable data sources, logging, and auditing.
  • Include vendor neutrality or multi‑vendor interoperability as evaluation criteria for education and public sector procurements.

Financial and market implications​

Near‑term signals​

Investors should expect short‑term market sensitivity around confirmation of material capex and procurement decisions. Companies that convert goodwill into GSA contracts, college programs, or federal procurements may see clearer revenue streams and improved project economics. Conversely, headline numbers that fail to materialize or that are later clarified downward can produce share‑price volatility.

Medium‑term structural effects​

  • Cloud and data‑center owners may benefit from accelerated permitting and grid upgrades, improving returns on multi‑year capex.
  • Semiconductor and equipment suppliers stand to gain if industrial‑policy moves (CHIPS retooling, government equity, or targeted incentives) prioritize local manufacturing and capital deployment.
  • Education‑technology vendors could face new consolidation pressures if large platform providers lock in institutions with free service windows and embedded certification pathways.

What to watch next — signs that separate signal from noise​

  • Formal press releases, SEC filings, or detailed program pages that itemize cash vs. in‑kind commitments and provide timelines.
  • GSA and federal procurement announcements that convert pledges into awarded contracts or blanket purchase agreements.
  • Independent tracking or auditing of education and certification outcomes—numbers on enrollments, completion rates, and employment placement that validate program efficacy.
  • State and local permitting/utility moves that materially lower construction timelines for data centers (grid upgrades, prioritized siting).
  • Legislative or regulatory responses at the federal and state level aimed at data protections for students, credential standards, or antitrust scrutiny that may reshape the programs’ operational viability.

Recommendations and guardrails for policymakers and institutions​

  • Establish independent reporting and an audit function to track corporate pledges, timelines, and measurable outcomes in education and workforce placement.
  • Require transparent accounting that separates cash grants from in‑kind donations (cloud credits, software licenses, course content) to avoid headline inflation of public benefits.
  • Mandate open, interoperable credential standards so certifications can be compared and accepted across employers, education systems, and regions.
  • Strengthen data protections for minors and public‑sector users of AI tools, including explicit limits on training use of student data and enforceable retention rules.
  • Preserve vendor‑neutral procurement pathways and require exit strategies to guard against long‑term lock‑in.

Conclusion​

The White House dinner on September 4 was a consequential moment not because it created new technology out of thin air, but because it publicly aligned some of the nation’s largest technology players with the administration’s priorities for AI education, infrastructure, and domestic investment. The gathering produced both immediately verifiable program commitments—particularly around education access—and headline‑grabbing, table‑side investment statements that require careful verification.
For IT leaders, educators, procurement officials and policymakers, the bottom line is clear: treat the headline numbers with skepticism until they appear in formal documentation, demand transparency and independent auditing for any public‑private pledges, and prepare operationally for a faster rollout of AI features—especially Copilot‑like services—in education and public sector accounts. If implemented with measured safeguards—open standards, robust privacy protections, and independent oversight—these programs could materially expand AI literacy and domestic capacity. If implemented without guardrails, they risk vendor lock‑in, credential dilution, and the politicization of school curricula. The next weeks and months will reveal whether the rhetoric at the White House translates into durable public value or remains largely symbolic.
Source: AInvest Tech Giants Meet with President Trump at the White House
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Featured
  • Article Article
Microsoft Elevate & White House AI Education Push: Free Copilot for Students
Replies
0
Views
83
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Microsoft Gives U.S. College Students 12 Months of Free Copilot in 365 Personal
Replies
0
Views
115
ChatGPT