Ethical Stack.

Google Antigravity

Agentic development platform for planning, executing and verifying software tasks across editor, terminal and browser.

Score calculation

(4 + 5 + 4 + 7 + 3) ÷ 5 = 4.6

Pressure target: −1 overall point. Overall score: 3.6/10.

5 of six dimensions rated. Unrated dimensions are excluded from the average.

Full scoring method ↗
Setup details

Google Antigravity individual and enterprise coding agent. It operates on local projects with selected cloud models; telemetry and privacy terms depend on account type.

What fits your needs

Google Antigravity individual and enterprise coding agent. It operates on local projects with selected cloud models; telemetry and privacy terms depend on account type.

Work with local projects

Agents can act on local folders and use editor, browser and terminal tools.

See the evidence

Select model and reasoning

Antigravity documents model selection and per-turn reasoning choices.

See the evidence
Tradeoffs to expect

Individual interactions can improve models

Individual terms describe interaction-data use for Google product and model improvement unless settings are changed.

See the evidence

Enterprise terms differ

Google Cloud enterprise access uses separate terms and controls.

See the evidence
How to switch

Choose a project target

Use a local folder or worktree, then confirm model and account route.

See the evidence
Practical questions

Check telemetry setting

Review the account setting that controls interaction telemetry.

See the evidence

Review file permissions

Check folder access and terminal sandbox settings.

See the evidence

Energy practices

4/10↑

Antigravity documents model choice and local agent execution, but no energy report.

See the evidence

The product gives model, reasoning and permission controls without reporting energy outcomes or electricity sources.

1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 2 controls = 4/10. This grades documented practices and transparency.

Task energy, water and serving facility electricity are undisclosed.

Reporting1/3
Local agent work and hosted model routes are documented, without energy reporting.
Electricity sourcing0/3
No electricity sourcing is reported for Antigravity inference.
Resource controls2/3
Model/reasoning selection and permission presets are controls; no resource reduction is measured.

Water disclosure

Water reporting has not been assessed for this choice.

Training data

N/A↑

Antigravity offers Google and third-party models, so training data depends on the selected route.

See the evidence

Select the exact model and account plan before assessing training-data rights.

The model list includes Google and third-party models. Individual terms allow interaction data to improve products and machine-learning technologies unless settings are changed; this is distinct from the models’ underlying training-data rights.

Exact model/version and account terms vary; the selected model training data and inherited training data need separate review.

Your data & privacy

5/10↑

Antigravity runs agents on local projects, but individual terms permit interaction data to be used for product and model improvement unless settings are changed.

See the evidence

Google documents local workspaces and project permissions. Individual terms record interaction data and permit use for product and ML improvement; enterprise access under Google Cloud terms says prompts, code and transcripts are not used to train Google foundation models.

Individual and enterprise rules differ. Terms permit Google staff and contractors to review interactions; third-party selected models may add policies.

Openness

4/10↑

Antigravity is a managed agent platform with local execution controls and multiple hosted model options.

See the evidence

Google documents a desktop and CLI product, hosted model selection and local project operations. The product and its inference services are not documented as self-hostable.

Individual and enterprise availability, terms and model selections differ.

Worker protections

7/10↑

Google has a supplier-responsibility system with worker surveys, third-party audits and grievance access, alongside current worker reports describing pay, pace and support concerns among AI raters.

See the evidence

Google says its Supplier Code applies to supplier and staffing-partner work, extended workers can report concerns anonymously through Google’s helpline, and its 2026 FY2025 report describes supplier audits and worker surveys with follow-up. Separately, Alphabet Workers Union-CWA’s 2025 report and raters’ pay-parity letter describe low pay, benefits gaps, insecure contracts and inadequate task-time; The Guardian documented raters’ accounts of rapid task timing, distressing moderation work and limited mental-health support, while Google says suppliers employ these workers and set their employment terms. The company system merits credit, but findings from hardware/supplier programs do not prove every AI rater is covered or remedied. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

1 + 2 pay & conditions + 2 worker voice & remedy + 2 evidence & follow-through = 7/10. This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment.

The FY2025 supplier program is risk-prioritized and does not disclose whether its survey/audit cohort included GlobalLogic AI raters; Google’s own policy places wage/benefit setting with suppliers. Worker reports are specific but are not an adjudicated finding about every supplier or rater.

Pay & conditions2/3
Supplier standards and vetting apply to extended workforce and current AI-rater testimony documents concrete working conditions, but rates, coverage and implementation vary by supplier and some worker evidence is self-reported.
Worker voice & remedy2/3
Extended workers have access to Google’s anonymous helpline and supplier feedback channels; union organizing and direct worker reports document voice, though they also describe limited influence over conditions.
Evidence & follow-through2/3
Google reports third-party supplier audits, worker surveys, follow-ups and program improvements; these are company-reported and the published figures don’t confirm coverage of AI annotation contractors specifically.
Workers rubric ↗

Military ties

3/10Broad defense ties↑

Google has a current DoD AI/cloud contract and has demonstrated military training/exercise support, but the reviewed evidence doesn’t confirm combat targeting or strike-intelligence deployment.

See the evidence

Google Public Sector describes a $200 million ceiling DoD CDAO contract and access to AI/cloud capabilities, including classified environments. Its Mobility Guardian 2025 account describes an Air Force exercise/edge workflow processing air-defense data and generating insights for counter-UAS triggers; this is exercise and support evidence, not proof that Google AI selected targets or supplied combat intelligence in an actual operation. Google’s current AI Principles include human oversight and safety commitments but no categorical military-use prohibition. The broad DoD contract leaves substantial enablement potential, so classify as broad-defense and apply the cap; do not call the exercise direct combat use. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

1 + 0 use restrictions + 1 enforcement & oversight + 2 relationship disclosure = 4, capped at 3/10. Known defense ties lower this rating; safeguards can improve it within the relationship’s cap.

Public sources do not disclose all task orders, operational use outcomes, customer-enforceable use restrictions, or independent oversight. The specific models and releases used in every defense workflow are not established.

Use restrictions0/4
The current AI Principles reviewed don’t confirm a binding weapons or harmful-surveillance prohibition for defense contracts; the older 2018 weaponization commitment is not current evidence.
Enforcement & oversight1/3
Google’s public AI Principles describe human oversight and safety practices but do not disclose military-specific independent review, enforcement, or remedies.
Relationship disclosure2/2
Google names the CDAO contract, its ceiling and the Mobility Guardian exercise workflow; the named public materials disclose no actual combat mission or current contract-level safeguards.

Google documents a broad DoD AI/cloud contract and military exercise support, but no confirmed operational use for target selection, strikes, or combat intelligence. Broad-defense cap applies. The relationship limits this grade to 3/10.

Military rubric ↗

BDS targets

Pressure target↑

Google / Alphabet is named as a pressure target in the BNC’s official campaign sources. The product is developed or supplied by Google / Alphabet.

See the evidence

If following this BNC campaign is a requirement, consider alternatives to paid Google / Alphabet products where practical. Check the model and host this tool connects to as well as the company providing the tool. This label follows the named company’s campaign status; it does not claim that BDS separately reviewed this exact product. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

This review covers the named company or parent in the BNC consumer/pressure guide and No Tech campaign. Lists and ownership can change.

Israel’s procurement administration says Google was selected with AWS for Nimbus public-cloud services and lists the Ministry of Defense and IDF among project partners. The Guardian’s investigation of leaked agreement documents reports that Nimbus terms limited Google’s ability to suspend service, including after alleged policy violations. Who Profits and AFSC describe cloud and AI use by military/security bodies, including surveillance-related capabilities; these are attributed research claims, not proof of Google’s role in a specific attack. Both companies denied circumventing legal obligations in response to the Guardian investigation.

How Gemini CLI is used in this relationship is not established. The government record establishes the contract and project participants; the investigative reporting describes contract controls, and research organizations make broader use claims. The reviewed evidence doesn’t show Google’s contribution to a particular operation, injury, or other specific harm.

More from Google

All sources

Side by side