Ethical Stack.

Gemini Notebook (formerly NotebookLM)

Source-grounded notebook and research assistant, now presented by Google as Gemini Notebook; NotebookLM notebooks remain accessible.

Score calculation

(2 + 8 + 2 + 7 + 3) ÷ 5 = 4.4

Pressure target: −1 overall point. Overall score: 3.4/10.

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

Full scoring method ↗
Setup details

Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms.

What fits your needs

Hosted source-grounded notebook; account type and sharing settings determine applicable safeguards.

Source-based research

Gemini Notebook is designed to answer from uploaded/linked sources and keep notebooks available across web and mobile.

See the evidence
Tradeoffs to expect

Uploaded files

Sources and chat history are uploaded to Google’s hosted service even though individual content is not directly used to train foundational models absent feedback.

See the evidence
How to switch

Start with a test notebook

Try a small, non-sensitive set of sources and check answer citations against the originals.

See the evidence
Practical questions

Account and sharing scope

Confirm whether the account is personal, Workspace, or school, and who can access a shared notebook.

See the evidence

Energy practices

2/10↑

For the NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ boundary, public documentation establishes the service or route but not its request-level physical footprint. The reviewed NotebookLM pages establish a source-grounded notebook product boundary but do not document user-facing model/token budgets or measured resource savings. Electricity sourcing is not mapped to this route.

See the evidence

This practices/transparency assessment covers the NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ boundary. The sources establish how the service or endpoint is exposed and don’t confirm a documented resource-saving control; they do not give a measured per-request energy, emissions or water value. The disclosure point reflects the stated operating boundary, not a product footprint, and company-wide electricity reporting is not attributed to this route.

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

The reviewed sources don’t confirm request-level electricity, emissions or water; the actual serving facility and its power mix are also not mapped to NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ.

Reporting1/3
The reviewed documentation defines the NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ boundary. It gives an operating-scope description, not a dated quantitative energy, carbon or water report for this route.
Electricity sourcing0/3
No reviewed source maps NotebookLM for individual Google accounts; Workspace and school account terms can differ to a disclosed electricity mix or time-and-location-matched clean-power supply. The route's actual electricity use and emissions therefore remain unestablished.
Resource controls0/3
The reviewed NotebookLM pages establish a source-grounded notebook product boundary but do not document user-facing model/token budgets or measured resource savings.

Water disclosure

Water reporting has not been assessed for this choice.

Training data

—Depends on the model↑

Gemini Notebook’s internal model may change and its product page does not provide a complete training-data rights manifest for the served model. Uploaded notebook content and model training data are separate.

See the evidence

User prompts, model-improvement settings, and the original training data are different evidence questions. The reviewed product documentation does not identify a fixed model version and complete training-data rights record for Individual Google account product; qualifying Workspace and school accounts have separate terms., so this assessment remains unscored.

Exact model selection, release version, source inventory, permissions, post-training data, and creator-remedy scope remain unresolved.

Your data & privacy

8/10↑

Google says individual Gemini Notebook content is not used to directly train foundational AI models unless the user submits feedback; work and school accounts use their respective Google Workspace terms.

See the evidence

The product-specific Google help page separates individual use from qualifying work and school accounts and states that notebook files, generated outputs and chat history are not used to directly train foundational models unless feedback is provided. The policy does not turn uploaded source documents into private local files.

No numerical score assigned because the reviewed evidence doesn’t confirm the route-specific controls needed for one.

Account eligibility, feedback submission, sharing settings, retention and associated Google services need account-specific review.

Openness

2/10↑

Gemini Notebook is a hosted Google service; the notebook product and serving stack are not described as self-hostable.

See the evidence

Google documents access through its hosted web/mobile service and account terms, but the reviewed product sources do not offer downloadable model weights or a self-hostable notebook runtime. Uploaded source files improve context, not product openness.

The score reflects service-level inspectability and control, not usefulness or model quality.

Google may change the underlying model and product scope; inspect current terms and workspace settings.

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↑

Pressure target in the checked BNC campaign list.

See the evidence

The BNC campaign guide names Google / Alphabet, the company behind Gemini, as a pressure target. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

The BNC campaign guide names Google / Alphabet, the company behind Gemini, as a pressure target.

More from Google

All sources

Side by side