---
title: "OpenAI Dots | Ethical Stack"
url: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/
catalog_version: f6baff2119d0e9158520da7fbe4232011dac79f25bd08757436d7a1dbd593db2
---

# OpenAI Dots

Always-on personal agent in ChatGPT that can research, work across connected tools, and continue tasks on its cloud computer.

Canonical profile: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/

Scope: Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.

Published overall: 3.5; 6/6 dimensions rated.

Round the equal-weight mean of available numerical ratings to one decimal; require at least four of six for an overall score. BDS status stays outside the mean; for eligible profiles, a boycott target caps the final score at 2/10 and a pressure target subtracts one point (minimum 1). Not listed and not checked do not adjust the score.

## Energy practices

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#energy

Dots is documented as a cloud-computer service; no product-scoped energy report, serving-site electricity mix or workload-resource control is provided.

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

Argument: 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.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

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

```json
{
  "method": "practices-transparency-v1",
  "scope": "Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.",
  "components": {
    "disclosure": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "OpenAI describes Dots as operating on its cloud computer, giving a hosted service boundary but no product-specific energy accounting.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots",
        "https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/"
      ]
    },
    "electricity": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "The cloud-computer description does not disclose the Dots serving site or its electricity sourcing.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/",
        "https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots"
      ]
    },
    "demand": {
      "score": 0,
      "reason": "The reviewed Dots docs do not provide workload token, context or compute controls associated with reduced physical resource use.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/",
        "https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots"
      ]
    }
  },
  "actualImpactMeasured": false
}
```

- [Introducing dots (official announcement)](https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Meet dots](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Training data

Finding: 5/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#training-rights

Dots names GPT-6 Astra; its public training-content summary provides broad corpus disclosure and crawler reservation controls, not a complete rights ledger.

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

Argument: 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 does not establish permission for most corpus material; Dots user-data controls are a separate question.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

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

```json
{
  "method": "training-rights-evidence-v1",
  "scope": "The stated training release or selected model",
  "components": {
    "provenance": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra summary names Common Crawl and broad data categories and sizes; Dots documentation identifies Astra as its model.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/gpt-6-astra-eu-ai-act-public-summary-of-training-content.pdf",
        "https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots"
      ]
    },
    "permissions": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "The Astra summary provides disclosure but does not establish a rights basis for most underlying training material.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/gpt-6-astra-eu-ai-act-public-summary-of-training-content.pdf"
      ]
    },
    "creatorControls": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "The Astra summary describes GPTBot honoring robots.txt training reservations and applicable opt-out signals, but not retrospective removal or retraining.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/gpt-6-astra-eu-ai-act-public-summary-of-training-content.pdf",
        "https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12141645-eu-ai-act-openai-resources-and-customer-guidance"
      ]
    }
  },
  "routeDependency": null,
  "modelReference": null
}
```

- [Meet dots](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [GPT-6 Astra public summary of training content](https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/gpt-6-astra-eu-ai-act-public-summary-of-training-content.pdf) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [OpenAI EU AI Act training-summary index](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/12141645-eu-ai-act-openai-resources-and-customer-guidance) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Your data & privacy

Finding: 5/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#privacy

Dots stores persistent context for the lifetime of the dot and shares memory with ChatGPT; users can delete the dot context, but not retroactively by turning sharing off.

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

Argument: 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.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

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

- [Meet dots](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Dots privacy, security, and safety FAQs](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/20001529-dots-privacy-security-and-safety-faqs) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Introducing dots (official announcement)](https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Openness

Finding: 2/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#openness

Dots is a hosted proprietary agent powered by GPT-6 Astra; no runtime source or downloadable model weights are published in the cited docs.

Reason: 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.

Argument: 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.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

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

- [Meet dots](https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/dots) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Introducing dots (official announcement)](https://openai.com/index/introducing-dots/) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Worker protections

Finding: 4/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#labour

OpenAI’s supplier code sets pay, safety and complaint rules for data workers. Public evidence of coverage and outcomes is limited.

Reason: 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.

Argument: 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. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to OpenAI Dots; it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): OpenAI: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of OpenAI Dots.

Research reviewed: 2026-10-24; evidence date: 2026-10-23

Unknowns: 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.

```json
{
  "method": "worker-safeguards-evidence-v1",
  "entity": "openai",
  "company": "OpenAI",
  "scope": "OpenAI's workforce and disclosed contractors. Coverage of individual product teams may be incomplete.",
  "components": {
    "conditions": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "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.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/policies/supplier-code/",
        "https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf",
        "https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/",
        "https://www.sama.com/blog/ethical-and-sustainable-sourcing"
      ]
    },
    "voice": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "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.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/policies/supplier-code/",
        "https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/",
        "https://www.sama.com/blog/ethical-and-sustainable-sourcing"
      ]
    },
    "assurance": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "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.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/policies/supplier-code/"
      ]
    }
  },
  "disclosureLimited": false,
  "meaning": "This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment."
}
```

- [OpenAI Supplier Code of Conduct](https://openai.com/policies/supplier-code/) (primary; checked 2026-10-23)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [TIME investigation: OpenAI and Kenyan workers](https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [Sama and Content Moderation: What You Need to Know](https://www.sama.com/blog/ethical-and-sustainable-sourcing) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

## Military ties

Finding: 3/10

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#military-contracts

OpenAI describes a classified Department of War agreement with cloud-only deployment, named technical and personnel safeguards, and explicit restrictions, while lawful military use remains permitted.

Reason: 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.

Argument: 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. This entry carries the same developer/operator finding to OpenAI Dots; it does not establish that this product was deployed under every cited relationship.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (dimension): OpenAI: the documented developer/operator record, not proof of deployment of OpenAI Dots.

Research reviewed: 2026-10-24; evidence date: 2026-10-23

Unknowns: 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.

```json
{
  "method": "military-ties-priority-v2",
  "entity": "openai",
  "company": "OpenAI",
  "scope": "OpenAI's relationships and safeguards. A company relationship does not identify every product or release used.",
  "components": {
    "restrictions": {
      "score": 1,
      "reason": "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.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/"
      ]
    },
    "oversight": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "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.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/"
      ]
    },
    "transparency": {
      "score": 2,
      "reason": "OpenAI publishes the agreement’s scope, restrictions, architecture and NSA carve-out; it still does not disclose deployed mission/use-level details.",
      "sourceUrls": [
        "https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/"
      ]
    }
  },
  "relationship": "broad-defense",
  "relationshipReason": "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.",
  "score": 3,
  "baseScore": 1,
  "safeguardPoints": 5,
  "safeguardAdjustment": 5,
  "rawScore": 6,
  "cap": 3,
  "disclosureLimited": false,
  "meaning": "Known military relationships take priority over missing safeguards. The rating does not establish the probability of an undisclosed contract."
}
```

- [Our agreement with the Department of War](https://openai.com/so-DJ/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/) (primary; checked 2026-10-24)

- [Our agreement with the Department of War](https://openai.com/index/our-agreement-with-the-department-of-war/) (primary; checked not recorded)

## BDS targets

Finding: Not listed

Assessment: https://ethicalstack.ai/products/openai-dots/#israel-palestine

OpenAI is not named in the two reviewed BNC corporate target sources.

Reason: Campaign category, excluded from numerical scoring.

Argument: 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.

Type: argument; confidence: medium

Scope (profile): Cloud agent available through eligible ChatGPT accounts; connects to ChatGPT apps, memory, plugins and optionally one user computer.

Research reviewed: not recorded; evidence date: not recorded

Unknowns: 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](https://bdsmovement.net/Guide-to-BDS-Boycott) (primary; checked not recorded)

- [BNC No Tech campaign](https://bdsmovement.net/no-tech-oppression-apartheid-or-genocide) (primary; checked not recorded)

## Reading the evidence

- Assessments are provisional editorial judgments. Cite the profile and the underlying sources, and retain confidence, scope and unknowns.

- Unknown, not-applicable and model-dependent are different states. Missing evidence does not establish good or bad conduct.

- Company-level evidence does not establish use of a particular product or model. Account plan, model, host and route can change an assessment.

- Energy scores describe documented practices and transparency, not measured request emissions. Zero component points can mean an evidence gap.

- Published overall scores require at least four of six numerical dimensions. Preserve coverage and BDS adjustments; BDS itself is categorical.

- No named BDS target found is limited to the reviewed campaign sources and is not approval. Personalized priorities do not change the published overall score.

- Review and source-check dates describe the research, not this deployment. Fetch current primary sources when the decision requires current verification.

Methodology: https://ethicalstack.ai/methodology/