Beyond Google: Are You Immortalized “In the Weights” of AI?

For many, a quick Google search once served as the definitive gauge of one’s public presence, a digital mirror reflecting professional accolades or personal milestones. Yet, as the digital landscape rapidly evolves, this traditional yardstick feels increasingly antiquated. The rise of sophisticated chatbots and large language models (LLMs) has introduced a new paradigm, where AI itself is becoming a primary source of information, challenging the long-held supremacy of conventional web search. In this shifting terrain, a profound question emerges: how are we, as individuals, truly remembered when AI isn’t simply querying the web, but drawing from its own intrinsic knowledge?

The Premise: Are You “In the Weights”?

This very question prompted Thomas Dimson and Joey Flynn, two engineers with a deep background in AI from their time at OpenAI (following the acquisition of their design startup Global Illumination), to create In the Weights. The name itself is a nod to the foundational elements of artificial intelligence: the “weights” are the numerical parameters that define an AI model’s training and ultimately, its output. Essentially, the website aims to quantify an AI model’s ability to recall someone solely from its internal representations, bypassing external tools like web search.

“Being in the weights means your existence was deemed important in the process of creating superhuman artificial intelligence,” the website declares, articulating a compelling new measure of significance in the digital age. It suggests a form of digital permanence, a testament to one’s impact if their data was significant enough to shape the very fabric of an AI’s understanding of the world.

How It Works: Peering Into the AI Brain

The methodology behind In the Weights is both straightforward and insightful. The platform purportedly queries a diverse array of prominent AI models – including Grok, Gemini, multiple iterations of GPT (such as GPT-5.4 Mini), Claude, and Llama, alongside several lesser-known models. Each model is presented with a consistent prompt, akin to, “Who is [name]? Give up to 10 results, each with a short description and confidence.”

Once the AI models return their responses, In the Weights employs a sophisticated clustering algorithm to group similar descriptions. This process then culminates in the assignment of a “strength score” for each queried name, a singular numerical value designed to represent the collective recall power of the AI ensemble. The results aren’t just a score; they also meticulously detail which specific models contributed which answers, and critically, highlight instances of potential hallucinations – such as when GPT-5.4 Mini mistakenly identified “Anthony Ha” as an “ambiguous name form that could refer to multiple people with the initials A.H.A.”

The Quest for AI Recognition: A Personal Anecdote and Broader Implications

The allure of seeing one’s “strength score” is undeniable. This humble tech blogger, for instance, achieved a strength score of 641, placing me proudly in the top 6% of names within the system. My initial satisfaction, however, was quickly tempered by a healthy dose of professional rivalry upon discovering that several TechCrunch colleagues had scored even higher. The platform’s dynamic leaderboard further fuels this competitive spirit, constantly shifting as new data is processed and models are updated. At the time of writing, “Home Alone” star Macaulay Culkin stood neck-and-neck with opera legend Luciano Pavarotti, both boasting an impressive strength score of 988 – illustrating the diverse range of individuals whose existence is deeply etched into the AI’s collective consciousness.

While I confess a lingering skepticism about whether being “remembered” by a chatbot constitutes a genuine ticket to immortality, the intriguing, and admittedly, jealousy-inducing nature of the results is palpable. The clear, comparable score provides an immediate, visceral understanding of one’s perceived significance within the AI realm, making it a compelling, if slightly narcissistic, exercise. As AI critic Anthony Moser wryly observed, this endeavor is “literally the same as asking 13 chatbots to tell you about yourself,” yet its appeal lies in its aggregation and quantification.

Adding to its charm is the website’s aesthetic – a cute, Nintendo-inspired retro design that makes the complex interaction with AI models feel surprisingly accessible and engaging.

Behind the Curtains: Why Dimson and Flynn Built It

Speaking to TechCrunch via email, Thomas Dimson elucidated the motivations behind In the Weights. After their departure from OpenAI, both he and Flynn were keen to “get the creative juices flowing again.” Dimson revealed that the concept stemmed from a deep contemplation of the evolving digital landscape. He recognized that “Google vanity searches are the wrong objective in 2026 as more traffic moves to LLMs,” positing a future where traditional search engine validation would diminish in favor of AI’s internal knowledge.

The profound realization that “so many lives are encoded somehow in a bunch of floating point numbers inside the AI brain” was a pivotal moment. The direction for the site, Dimson added, was “sealed” by a witty, tongue-in-cheek blog post that cleverly riffed on the concept of AI weights and Terry Bisson’s classic science fiction short story, “They’re Made Out of Meat.” This blend of technical insight and cultural commentary clearly resonated.

The reception to In the Weights has been nothing short of explosive. “Reception has been insane so far,” Dimson shared. “We thought this would be a mild curiosity but it seems like it has struck a nerve of wanting to see if you live forever in the super intelligence (the comparison factor doesn’t hurt either!).” This highlights a fundamental human desire for recognition and legacy, now transposed onto the cutting edge of artificial intelligence.

Looking Ahead: The Future of AI Recall

Dimson and Flynn aren’t stopping at just providing a score. Their future plans for In the Weights promise deeper insights into the opaque world of AI cognition. Dimson intends to investigate the nuances behind why different models within the same series might return disparate results, shedding light on the subtle variations in their training and understanding. Furthermore, they aim to explore which models exhibit biases towards particular types of people or information, a critical inquiry for ethical AI development. Perhaps most intriguingly, they plan to identify individuals who “should have a Wikipedia article but don’t,” suggesting In the Weights could even serve as a tool to uncover overlooked figures of historical or cultural significance, as recognized by AI.

The Bottom Line

In the Weights stands as a fascinating, timely creation that taps into both our vanity and our evolving understanding of digital identity. In a world increasingly mediated by artificial intelligence, this platform offers a unique, quantifiable answer to the question of whether we genuinely exist within the foundational “memory” of these superhuman systems. It’s more than just a novelty; it’s a mirror reflecting our changing relationship with information, validation, and permanence in the age of AI, prompting us to consider what it truly means to be remembered when the gatekeepers of knowledge are no longer just human, but artificial intelligences themselves.