Pragadeesh

Project Owner

Adaptive Open Framework for AGI Motivation

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Details locked. Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.
Details locked.Check back later to view.

Overview

This proposal presents an open-source-based motivational framework for AGI systems, integrating Psi theory, ECAN attention modeling, and ethical response mechanisms into a modular architecture. The system adapts internal drives dynamically, enabling scalable and ethical decision-making in AGI agents. A prototype will be developed using Python with MeTTa-style interface output, compatible with the Hyperon ecosystem. This foundation can evolve into a generalized plug-and-play motivational subsystem for future AGI platforms.

RFP Guidelines

Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Proposal Submission (5 days left)

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $40,000 USD
Proposals 3
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Apr. 14, 2025

Develop a modular and extensible framework for integrating various motivational systems into AGI architectures, supporting both human-like and "alien digital" intelligences. This could be done as a highly detailed and precise specification, or as a relatively simple software prototype with suggestions for generalization and extension. Bids are expected to range from $15,000 - $30,000.

Proposal Description

Proposal Details Locked…

In order to protect this proposal from being copied, all details are hidden until the end of the submission period. Please come back later to see all details.

Total Milestones
3
Total Budget
$30,000_USD
Last Updated
7 May 2025

Milestone 1 - Architecture Design & Framework Specification

Description

Duration: Week 1 to Week 2 Design a modular open-source motivation framework based on Psi theory and ECAN-style attention modeling. Define agent-agnostic architecture, motivational variables, state dynamics, and ethical logic layers compatible with Hyperon/MeTTa integration.

Deliverables

- Full technical architecture document - Motivation variable flowchart - Ethical logic mapping - Integration blueprint with open-source tools

Budget

$8,000 USD

Success Criterion

Completed design documents and diagrams reviewed for feasibility and compliance with open-source AGI standards.

Milestone 2 - Prototype Agent & Implementation

Description

Duration: Week 3 to Week 10 Implement a lightweight Python-based AGI prototype agent capable of motivational state regulation and adaptive behavior. Simulate three environments, demonstrate motivational shifts, and produce MeTTa-compatible outputs. Integrate an ethical logic component for decision guidance.

Deliverables

- Working motivation agent (Python) - 3 scenario simulations - Ethical rule engine integration - MeTTa-style output formatting - Source code on GitHub (MIT License)

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Agent successfully adapts to simulated inputs with documented motivational transitions and outputs validated across three tasks.

Milestone 3 - Documentation & Open-Source Release

Description

Duration: Week 11 to Week 16 Finalize documentation for end users and developers, prepare deployment instructions, and release the project as a public MIT-licensed GitHub repository. Prepare a short demo video highlighting motivational logic transitions and ethical output behaviors.

Deliverables

- Complete documentation (README, setup guide, logic walkthrough) - Demo video showing agent in action - Public GitHub release (code + license) - Issue tracker + support notes

Budget

$7,000 USD

Success Criterion

Independent reviewers are able to run and test the system based on provided documentation. Final repository is publicly accessible and fully licensed.

Join the Discussion (0)

Expert Ratings

Reviews & Ratings

No Reviews Avaliable

Check back later by refreshing the page.

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

The weighted average of the 4 perspectives Overall

0.0
Each RFP defines a maximum allowed budget, but teams can differentiate their proposal by offering a solution with a lower budget or a wider scope.Value for money

0.0
This rating indicates compliance to 'Must haves' but also adaptation of 'Nice to haves' and Non-functional requirements defined in the RFP.Compliance with RFP requirements

0.0
RFPs will offer varying degrees of freedom. This rating indicates the quality of the team's specific solution ideas, the provided details, and the reviewer's confidence in the team's ability to execute.Solution details and team expertise

0.0

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

0 /5000 chars

Warning: Adding final group rating for this project will prevent expert users from adding new or editing existing reviews

Reviews and Ratings in Deep Funding are structured in 4 categories. This will ensure that the reviewer takes all these perspectives into account in their assessment and it will make it easier to compare different projects on their strengths and weaknesses. Overall (Primary) This is an average of the 4 perspectives. At the start of this new process, we are assigning an equal weight to all categories, but over time we might change this and make some categories more important than others in the overall score. (This may even be done retroactively). Feasibility (secondary) This represents the user\'s assessment of whether the proposed project is theoretically possible and if it is deemed feasible. E.g. A proposal for nuclear fission might be theoretically possible, but it doesn’t look very feasible in the context of Deep Funding. Viability (secondary) This category is somewhat similar to Feasibility, but it interprets the feasibility against factors such as the size and experience of the team, the budget requested, and the estimated timelines. We could frame this as: “What is your level of confidence that this team will be able to complete this project and its milestones in a reasonable time, and successfully deploy it?” Examples:

A proposal that promises the development of a personal assistant that outperforms existing solutions might be feasible, but if there is no AI expertise in the team the viability rating might be low.
A proposal that promises a new Carbon Emission Compensation scheme might be technically feasible, but the viability could be estimated low due to challenges around market penetration and widespread adoption.

Desirability (secondary) Even if the project team succeeds in creating a product, there is the question of market fit. Is this a project that fulfills an actual need? Is there a lot of competition already? Are the USPs of the project sufficient to make a difference? Example:

Creating a translation service from, say Spanish to English might be possible, but it\'s questionable if such a service would be able to get a significant share of the market

Usefulness (secondary) This is a crucial category that aligns with the main goal of the Deep Funding program. The question to be asked here is: “To what extent will this proposal help to grow the Decentralized AI Platform?” For proposals that develop or utilize an AI service on the platform, the question could be “How many API calls do we expect it to generate” (and how important / high-valued are these calls?). For a marketing proposal, the question could be “How large and well-aligned is the target audience?” Another question is related to how the budget is spent. Are the funds mainly used for value creation for the platform or on other things? Examples:

A metaverse project that spends 95% of its budget on the development of the game and only 5 % on the development of an AI service for the platform might expect a low ‘usefulness’ rating here.

A marketing proposal that creates t-shirts for a local high school, would get a lower ‘usefulness’ rating than a marketing proposal that has a viable plan for targeting highly esteemed universities in a scaleable way.
An AI service that is fully dedicated to a single product, does not take advantage of the purpose of the platform. When the same service would be offered and useful for other parties, this should increase the ‘usefulness’ rating.

Pragadeesh

Project Owner

Leads full-stack development of the open-source AGI motivation system, including architecture design, prototype coding, ethical alignment integration, testing, documentation, and release.

View Profile