Maksym Nechepurenko

Project Owner

AGI Quantum Revolution

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request n/a
RFP Guidelines Review of quantum computing technologies

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

Overview

As a group of leading quantum researchers with strong expertise in artificial intelligence (AI), QUAE is uniquely positioned to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the potential role of quantum computing in advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This proposal outlines our approach to critically assess the realistic capabilities of quantum computing, separate the hype from achievable advancements, and explore its application within the OpenCog Hyperon framework. Our analysis will be grounded in rigorous research, technical simulations, and collaboration with the Hyperon team, particularly focusing on their MeTTa interpreters.

RFP Guidelines

Review of quantum computing technologies

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $80,000 USD
Proposals 10
Awarded Projects n/a

SingularityNET

Oct. 4, 2024

This RFP seeks to critically evaluate the role of quantum computing in advancing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The goal is to distinguish between realistic capabilities and hype, providing clear insights into the practical benefits and limitations of quantum computing for AGI architectures, particularly within the OpenCog Hyperon framework. Part of this should involve interacting with the Hyperon team who've built the existing and in-development MeTTa interpreters.

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
4
Total Budget
$75,000_USD
Last Updated
5 Dec 2024

Milestone 1 - Quantum Paradigms and Research Plan

Description

Lay the groundwork for the research by identifying key quantum paradigms and formulating a comprehensive research strategy.

Deliverables

Comprehensive research plan detailing quantum paradigms (e.g. quantum-classical hybrid computing entropy quantum computing photonic reservoir computing) and their potential applications in AGI systems. Analyses of potential implementations identifying strengths limitations and key application areas. Detailed project plan with timelines methodologies tools and resources for evaluating the selected paradigms.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Submission of a clear, well-structured research plan approved by stakeholders. Identification of at least three quantum paradigms with well-documented potential for AGI applications. Feasibility of the proposed methodologies for evaluating paradigms is validated by expert reviewers.

Milestone 2 - Demonstration of Substantial Research Progress

Description

Conduct significant research and provide early evidence of the practical or theoretical viability of the identified quantum paradigms.

Deliverables

Evidence of significant progress in analyzing the identified quantum paradigms. Initial theoretical findings on the feasibility and potential advantages of quantum hardware for AGI tasks (e.g. performance improvement scalability cognitive efficiency). Proof-of-concept demonstrations or simulations using quantum algorithms addressing AGI-related problems.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Demonstration of at least one practical or theoretical application of quantum paradigms to AGI. Positive feedback from peer reviewers or stakeholders validating the depth and relevance of the findings. Completion of simulations or theoretical models aligned with the initial project plan.

Milestone 3 - Continued Demonstration of Deeper Research

Description

Build on prior progress by conducting deeper investigations and refining the proposed quantum solutions for AGI.

Deliverables

Advanced analyses of the selected quantum paradigms with a focus on their refinement and potential integration into AGI systems. Updated documentation reflecting progress challenges encountered and adjustments to methodologies or paradigms. Exploration of hybrid solutions or alternative paradigms where initial findings suggest limited feasibility.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Submission of refined research findings that build upon initial progress, addressing stakeholder feedback. Evidence of deeper insights into the computational advantages of quantum paradigms for AGI. Identification of at least two well-documented paradigms showing clear applicability to AGI components.

Milestone 4 - Final Stages of Research Progress

Description

Conclude the research phase with a comprehensive evaluation of findings and strategic recommendations for future work or practical implementation.

Deliverables

Comprehensive report detailing the findings from the research phase including the impact of quantum paradigms on AGI performance scalability and computational efficiency. Analysis of results providing actionable recommendations for integration or further study of quantum paradigms. Final presentation to stakeholders summarizing key achievements insights and potential future directions.

Budget

$15,000 USD

Success Criterion

Approval of the final research report by stakeholders, demonstrating clarity and depth of findings. Identification of at least one quantum paradigm with a well-documented, practical pathway for integration into AGI systems. Stakeholder agreement on the proposed roadmap for future integration or research efforts.

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

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

Review Headline

0 /50 chars

Review Summary

0 /5000 chars

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.

Maksym Nechepurenko

Project Owner

As the Advisor and an early founding member of QUAE, I am responsible for guiding the project’s overall direction, focusing on team composition and ensuring the alignment of skills with project goals.

View Profile