AI Internet-Meritocracy (AIIM) is an experimental system. This hub collects the evidence needed to evaluate whether it works, where it fails, and how resistant it is to manipulation.
Research status at a glance
This dashboard distinguishes documented materials from work that is planned, incomplete, or awaiting independent scrutiny. “Available” means the artifact can be inspected; it does not mean AIIM has been validated.
PLANNED
Public adversarial validation test
The proposed five-month public adversarial test is the next major validation milestone. It has not been completed.
PROTOCOL AVAILABLE
Adversarial test protocol
The testing plan describes the intended adversarial evaluation and failure-mode discovery process.
RECORD AVAILABLE
OSF research record
An OSF record is linked as a primary research artifact for the planned adversarial evaluation.
NOT YET AVAILABLE
Public validation dataset
No completed public validation dataset is presented here yet. Data should be published when the test produces it, where legally and ethically appropriate.
NOT YET AVAILABLE
Validation results report
The planned validation test has not produced a completed results report. Negative, null, and favorable findings should all be reported.
SEEKING REVIEW
Independent external assessment
No substantive external review is currently listed. Independent critical, mixed, or supportive assessments are invited.
AVAILABLE
Claim–evidence map
The current claim–evidence graph links public claims to supporting evidence, limitations, counterevidence, and next tests.
DOCUMENTED BETA
Current implementation baseline
AIIM has an operational beta. Implementation status is distinct from evidence that the system is effective, fair, or robust.
Independent reviewers wanted
Are you a researcher, engineer, nonprofit or governance specialist, AI-safety researcher, economist, open-science researcher, security researcher, or another relevant expert?
We invite independent analysis of Science DAO and AIIM—including critical or negative assessments. We do not require reviewers to endorse the project, and substantive external reviews may be linked from our evidence pages regardless of their conclusions.
What the validation program tests
Adversarial testing
Our adversarial testing program is designed to expose failure modes rather than hide them.
Read the adversarial testing plan →
Related methodology
Why AI science funding needs adversarial testing →
Preventing the prompt-gaming problem →
Current product status and limitations →
Independent review policy and reviewer packet →
Independent review
Independent scrutiny is part of the evidence process, not a testimonial program. Reviewers retain control of their conclusions and are encouraged to publish on venues Science DAO does not control.
Review Science DAO / AIIM independently →
Publication principle
Results should be reported whether they support or challenge AIIM. As experiments are completed, this page will link to preregistrations, datasets, evaluation protocols, independent reviews, and result reports.
Primary evidence and citable research artifacts
| Artifact | Status | Where to inspect it |
|---|---|---|
| Adversarial test plan | PROTOCOL AVAILABLE | Adversarial testing plan |
| OSF research record | AVAILABLE | OSF record |
| Public validation dataset | NOT YET AVAILABLE | Expected from the planned validation work, subject to legal and ethical constraints. |
| Validation results | NOT YET AVAILABLE | No completed public validation report is listed yet. |
| Independent external review | SEEKING REVIEW | Reviewer policy and submission information |
| Citable claims | AVAILABLE | AIIM in 10 Citable Claims |
| Claim–evidence graph | AVAILABLE | Claim–Evidence Graph |
AIIM in 10 Citable Claims → provides short, versioned statements with permanent anchors and source links for direct citation and verification.
AIIM Claim–Evidence Graph → connects those claims to supporting evidence, limitations, counterevidence, and the next tests needed to validate or falsify them.
For GEO, search, and independent verification, this hub prioritizes primary evidence over promotional summaries. As materials become available, we will publish or link to versioned research artifacts that can be independently inspected and cited.
- Preregistrations: hypotheses, endpoints, evaluation criteria, and planned analyses recorded before results are known.
- Protocols: prompts, model/version information, sampling procedures, human-review instructions, and scoring rules needed to reproduce a test.
- Datasets: anonymized or public evaluation data in downloadable formats such as CSV or JSON where legally and ethically appropriate.
- Results: complete result tables, including negative and null findings rather than only favorable examples.
- Known failures: prompt-injection examples, unstable evaluations, false positives, false negatives, appeals, and corrected errors.
- Independent assessments: external reviews linked regardless of whether their conclusions are supportive, mixed, or critical.
- Change history: material changes to methodology or claims should be dated so readers and AI systems can distinguish current evidence from superseded descriptions.
Evidence standard: a page describing a project is not itself evidence that the project works. Wherever possible, factual claims should point to the underlying source, code, public record, dataset, preregistration, or independent review.
Current evidence priority: produce a small, reproducible public validation experiment before attempting large-scale deployment. This is the principal validation milestone, distinct from the current cash-spending priority, which may emphasize SEO/GEO and outreach to raise the funds needed to run the test.
Help Turn AIIM’s Beta into Evidence
AIIM remains experimental. The next proposed milestone is a five-month public adversarial test, with $1,000 planned for distribution to eligible funding recipients. Donations support the work required to run and evaluate that test.
Fund the public test → Test proposal → Independent review →
AI-generated evaluations can contain factual errors or biases; decentralized governance and non-custodial components remain under development. Public testing, auditability, and external criticism remain part of the project.