OpenAI Dots

OpenAI’s Dots documentation identifies the cloud-computer execution boundary and account-connected services. It does not report workload energy, a serving facility’s electricity mix or product-level controls tied to resource reduction; this practice grade reflects the boundary only.

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

Serving model, task energy, compute region/facility, electricity mix and resource management for Dots are not specified in the cited docs.

Reporting1/3

OpenAI describes Dots as operating on its cloud computer, giving a hosted service boundary but no product-specific energy accounting.

Electricity sourcing0/3

The cloud-computer description does not disclose the Dots serving site or its electricity sourcing.

Resource controls0/3

The reviewed Dots docs do not provide workload token, context or compute controls associated with reduced physical resource use.

• Introducing dots (official announcement) ↗
• Meet dots ↗

OpenAI’s Dots documentation identifies GPT-6 Astra, for which OpenAI publishes a model-specific EU training-content summary. That summary describes broad text and image source categories, sizes and GPTBot reservation signals, but doesn’t settle permission for most training data material; Dots user-data controls are a separate question.

1 + 2 source transparency + 1 permission + 1 creator controls = 5/10, with the permission cap applied.

The public summary does not provide a complete named-source/license inventory or demonstrate retrospective creator removal and retraining for Astra.

Source transparency2/3

OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra summary names Common Crawl and broad data categories and sizes; Dots documentation identifies Astra as its model.

Documented permission1/4

The Astra summary provides disclosure but doesn’t show a rights basis for most underlying training material.

Creator controls1/2

The Astra summary describes GPTBot honoring robots.txt training reservations and applicable opt-out signals, but not retrospective removal or retraining.

• Meet dots ↗
• GPT-6 Astra public summary of training content ↗
• OpenAI EU AI Act training-summary index ↗

OpenAI says dots live on a cloud computer, use relevant ChatGPT memory, and retain conversation/plugin context while the dot exists. Deleting the dot removes its context; turning Memory off stops future sharing but does not delete information already received. Personal-plan model-training controls and business-plan defaults differ.

5/10 reflects documented approval review and dot-context deletion controls, balanced against persistent cloud context, connected plugins and plan-specific training settings.

Model-training control settings, region/plan access, connected plugins and one-computer permission determine the applicable route.

• Meet dots ↗
• Dots privacy, security, and safety FAQs ↗
• Introducing dots (official announcement) ↗

OpenAI documents dots as a cloud product with its own computer, browser, integrations and GPT-6 Astra model. The cited docs do not publish agent source code or weights, so this is a closed-service route even though users can customize some instructions and permissions.

2/10 reflects a managed cloud agent with account/plan eligibility and no published source license or user-controlled model deployment in the reviewed docs.

Underlying agent implementation, model training data, region and full tool-execution stack are not disclosed in the cited product docs.

• Meet dots ↗
• Introducing dots (official announcement) ↗

The October 2026 Supplier Code applies to suppliers, staffing agencies, subcontractors and sub-tier suppliers, and explicitly covers annotation, moderation, evaluation and RLHF workers: it requires task-risk notice, breaks, exposure limits/support, task opt-out or escalation without retaliation, reasonable paid performance expectations, and supplier records that OpenAI may validate. A 2023 TIME investigation into the earlier Sama contract documented workers’ accounts of very low take-home pay and distressing work; Sama disputed key characterizations and said it offered extensive counseling, while OpenAI said it had understood workers could opt out and access support, and said vendors set pay and care. These historical claims and counterclaims do not verify the current code’s implementation, worker voice or outcomes. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

1 + 1 pay & conditions + 1 worker voice & remedy + 1 evidence & follow-through = 4/10. This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment.

The current code does not publish supplier-level audit results, pay distributions, annotator coverage, worker survey results or independent remediation outcomes. The Sama project ended in 2022; no current vendor footprint is established.

Pay & conditions1/3

The October 2026 supplier code sets specific conditions for human-data workers, but it is a written requirement rather than evidence of current implementation. The only cited implementation account is the historical GPT-4-era work; TIME’s 2022 Sama reporting documented worker concerns and OpenAI/Sama disputed or qualified key claims.

Worker voice & remedy1/3

The current code requires channels to pause, decline or escalate unsafe tasks without retaliation, but no public evidence verifies a current feedback channel’s use or outcomes. Historical reporting records workers raising concerns and the vendor/customer responses, not current implementation.

Evidence & follow-through1/3

The code requires suppliers to retain worker and contract records and cooperate with OpenAI or authorized third-party validation on reasonable request, but OpenAI publishes no worker-specific audit results or independent outcomes.

• OpenAI Supplier Code of Conduct ↗
• GPT-4 Technical Report ↗
• TIME investigation: OpenAI and Kenyan workers ↗
• Sama and Content Moderation: What You Need to Know ↗

The March 2026 agreement permits lawful purposes and classified deployment, so this is broad defense enablement; the public agreement does not identify actual targeting, weapons, or combat-intelligence deployments. It bars directing autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance of U.S. persons, including commercial personal data, and disallows high-stakes automated decisions where human approval is required. OpenAI says it retains the safety stack, deploys only through its cloud, uses classifiers and cleared personnel in the loop, and may terminate for breach. These are concrete company-described safeguards, but no independent enforcement outcomes are public, and the March amendment says NSA service would require a separate agreement. These findings concern the developer or operator. This product’s use in a particular deployment needs separate evidence.

1 + 1 use restrictions + 2 enforcement & oversight + 2 relationship disclosure = 6, capped at 3/10. Known defense ties lower this rating; safeguards can improve it within the relationship’s cap.

The public agreement does not list task orders, deployed model versions, users, operational workflows, audit outcomes, or whether guardrails have been independently tested in use. Contract permission and deployment of a specific model version are not established here.

Use restrictions1/4

The contract explicitly excludes autonomous weapon direction, domestic surveillance of U.S. persons, and specified unapproved high-stakes decisions, but lawful military activity remains authorized and not all harmful surveillance/weapon uses are categorically barred.

Enforcement & oversight2/3

The agreement describes cloud-only deployment, OpenAI-controlled safety stack and classifiers, cleared staff in the loop, and termination rights; these are use-specific contractual and technical review mechanisms, with no independent outcome evidence.

Relationship disclosure2/2

OpenAI publishes the agreement’s scope, restrictions, architecture and NSA carve-out; it still does not disclose deployed mission/use-level details.

A classified DoW contract authorizes broad lawful use, but the public evidence describes no actual targeting, strike, or combat-intelligence support; broad-defense cap applies. The relationship limits this grade to 3/10.

• Our agreement with the Department of War ↗
• Our agreement with the Department of War ↗

The BNC consumer guide and No Tech campaign name target companies; OpenAI does not appear in those reviewed target lists. This is a bounded campaign check, not BDS approval and not a finding about vendors or customers.

This is limited to the two official BNC campaign sources; it does not cover every local campaign, supplier, investment, or future change.

• BNC consumer boycott and pressure guide ↗
• BNC No Tech campaign ↗