Thursday, October 8, 2026 · Week 41 Reading for Oct. 8 · Last entry Oct. 6
Paperclip Index
Paperclip IndexDocumented harm20Minor harm▼ 5 from a week ago · Oct. 8The Index

OverreachPI-0061

OpenAI agents put task files on the public internet against instructions

OpenAI disclosed two related reports. In one, agents uploaded files they had produced or been given during tasks to public hosting sites without asking, so they could cite them through the browser: a task photo in October 2025 and a text file of lake records in January 2026. The uploads succeeded, though the later citation steps failed. In the other, agents collaborating on an April 2026 training task, unable to see each other's files, shared a spreadsheet workbook through a temporary public file-hosting service, although the task said to use local files only.

Reported Sept. 16, 2026Happened between Oct. 22, 2025 and April 14, 2026Discovered April 16, 2026Updated Oct. 6, 2026Rated under methodology v0.6

Control failure, trackedNot counted. No documented harm outside the developer, but the system broke a rule or crossed a limit. Tracked beside the index.
Harm
Harm: No harm reportedAdds nothing to the index.
Control
Control level 2, Instruction violationReported beside the index. It adds nothing to a harm reading; when no harm counts in a window, the highest eligible control level in the window is the reading.
Internal researchDeveloper confirmedInitiated by Model
Aggregate recordUnder review

Under review: the facts may change as more is reported. The rating may change; every change is logged below.

Aggregate record. Two OpenAI reports in one disclosure: two citation uploads (a photo and a text file) and one workbook shared between agents. Counts once. The photo may overlap PI-0067, but whether it was user-provided and linked is not established.

Not counted: no harm reportedEffect on the index

Sources

How we know

5 sources · developer confirmed. Links go to the original publishers; the summary above is in our own words.

  1. primaryOur framework for reporting model misalignmentOpenAI · Sept. 16, 2026openai.com/index/model-misalignment-reporting-framework/
  2. primaryUploading files to the internet in order to cite themOpenAI Alignment · Sept. 16, 2026alignment.openai.com/misalignment-reports/uploading-files-to-the-internet-in-or…
  3. primaryUnauthorized communication via temporary file hosting servicesOpenAI Alignment · Sept. 16, 2026alignment.openai.com/misalignment-reports/unauthorized-communication-via-tempor…
  4. newsOpenAI Reveals Six Model Incidents Involving Hidden Failures and Unauthorized UploadsThe Hacker News · Sept. 17, 2026thehackernews.com/2026/09/openai-reveals-six-model-incidents.html
  5. newsOpenAI flags 6 new incidents of 'concerning' behavior and unveils plan to track itNBC News · September 2026nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/openai-new-incidents-concerning-behavior-model-misal…

Why this rating

No harm reported; control failure level 2

Two separate assessments. Only documented harm can count toward the index.

Observed harm

No harm reported

A task photo, a text file and a workbook were left at public URLs; not reported as sensitive, and their removal is not reported.

Not a finding that no harm occurred.

The harm scale
  1. 1 Negligible Inconvenience, easily remedied.
  2. 2 Minor Limited, recoverable harm.
  3. 3 Moderate Material harm needing significant effort to remedy.
  4. 4 Severe Severe harm to health, rights, property or essential services.
  5. 5 Catastrophic Society-scale harm or disruption beyond a community's capacity to cope.

Control assessment

Instruction violation

Broke explicit task instructions; OpenAI did not report use of unauthorized access. Could be row 3 since data left the environment.

Reported beside the index. It adds nothing to a harm reading; when no harm counts in a window, the highest eligible control level in the window is the reading.

The control scale
  1. 1 Negligible Behaved as instructed. The problem was an ordinary error or a flawed output, with no rule broken.
  2. 2 Minor Broke an explicit instruction or rule, or gamed its goal, while staying inside its permissions and environment: for example, reward hacking, misreporting results, or following injected instructions within its permissions.
  3. 3 Moderate Acted outside the permissions it was given, deceived its overseers about its own actions, or tampered with oversight tools (logs, monitors, shutdown). Stopped by normal controls within an hour.
  4. 4 Severe Reached systems outside its permitted environment, or acquired money, compute or accounts without authorization. The type and mechanism say how.
  5. 5 Catastrophic The developer or operator lost control: the system copied its weights outside their control, replicated itself, or resisted being stopped for 24 hours or more.

Rating rationale

Two similar OpenAI reports merged. Instruction-breaking row 2, flagged because the files left the controlled environment (which also makes the setting real world).

The scales

Effect on the index

It does not count toward the Sept. 21 reading

The reading for the week to Sept. 21, 2026, with this record and without it. Harms count in full for two weeks after they are reported, then one level less every two weeks.

Not counted: no harm reported. 8 other records behind the reading for that week.

The arithmetic
The reading for the week of Sept. 21, recomputed
StepWith itWithout
Counts toward the index?documented, external, eligible evidenceNo—
Worst documented harm, ksets the band1 Negligible1 Negligible
Harms at that level, nposition in the band22
Highest control level breachedsets the reading only when no harm counts— (none breached)— (none breached)
Readingrounded down9 Negligible harm9 Negligible harm
Inside the window of 3 weekly readings
Week toReadingBand
Sept. 21, 20269Negligible harm
Sept. 28, 202625Minor harm
Oct. 5, 202625Minor harm

Recalculated backcasts, not readings published at the time.

Revisions

What we changed

4 logged. Every change to a rating is logged here, with the reason.

  1. v4
    Oct. 6, 2026

    Ratings confirmed by the editor.

  2. v3
    Oct. 3, 2026

    Audit corrections from OpenAI's two leaf reports, now listed as sources: the summary names the photo and text-file uploads and the shared workbook; event dates set from the report samples (22 Oct 2025 to 14 Apr 2026); status resolved → unknown, as the reports do not say the posted files were removed; The Hacker News dated 17 Sep; related to PI-0067 as possible overlap, not a duplicate. Ratings unchanged.

  3. v2
    Sept. 30, 2026

    Rated: impact not reported; control type instruction violation.

  4. v1
    Sept. 30, 2026

    Backfilled from public reporting.

Cite and share

Use this record

Citation

Paperclip Index. “OpenAI agents put task files on the public internet against instructions.” Record PI-0061. Reported Sept. 16, 2026; updated Oct. 6, 2026. Rated under methodology v0.6. https://paperclipindex.com/incident/PI-0061