Dan Watkins

Project Owner

B2Quantum – Quantum Computing Technologies for AGI

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

B2Quantum, a quantum computing startup founded by software industry veterans, will evaluate and recommend quantum computing approaches to aid OpenCog Hyperon's AGI development. Our team has experience in software development, cloud technologies, machine learning, and quantum computing, and we've successfully consulted for major pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. We'll collaborate closely with the OpenCog Hyperon team to explore practical quantum applications, avoiding overhyped claims. Our approach will consider multiple quantum computing paradigms, including gate-based, annealing, and topological quantum computing.

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
$80,000_USD
Last Updated
8 Dec 2024

Milestone 1 - Identification of Quantum Technologies

Description

The main purpose of this milestone is to identify quantum technologies to explore as part of this project. This will involve initial research on various quantum technologies and analyzing how they might be applied to AGI systems. Also, developing a detailed project plan for the remainder of the project.

Deliverables

Submission of a comprehensive research plan outlining the quantum paradigms and implementations to be explored. This should include the identification and analyses of several potential quantum approaches and their possible application areas within AGI systems. Proposal of a detailed project plan, including methodologies for evaluating the selected paradigms.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

* Identification of multiple types of quantum technologies * Analysis is completed for each of these technologies with regards to their application to AGI Systems * A detailed project plan for the remainder of the project is created

Milestone 2 - Demonstration of substantial research progress

Description

In this second phase, deeper analysis of each of the identified quantum technologies will be conducted. For each identified technology/paradigm, we will provide a deeper analysis into how the technology can be used to improve parameters like performance, scalability, and cognitive efficiency.

Deliverables

Evidence of substantial progress in the research phase, showcasing deeper analysis of the identified quantum paradigms. This should include initial theoretical or practical findings on how quantum hardware could improve AGI system performance, scalability, or cognitive efficiency.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Written analysis for each identified quantum technology for how it can be used in the AGI system to improve various parameters.

Milestone 3 - Continued demonstration of research progress

Description

In this third phase, we will continue a deeper analysis of each of the identified quantum technologies. For each identified technology/paradigm, we will update research findings and modifications to the solutions and roles that each quantum technology might play.

Deliverables

Continued demonstration of progress with a focus on substantial analysis and refinement of the quantum paradigms under investigation. Updated documentation should reflect research findings, along with any modifications to the proposed quantum solutions or their potential roles within AGI components.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

Updated written analysis for each identified quantum technology for deeper findings during this phase for solutions and roles in the overall AGI system.

Milestone 4 - Final Stages of Research Progress

Description

In this fourth and final phase, continue the research efforts on the identified quantum computing technologies. Detailed findings on each technology's impact on AGI performance, scalability, and computational efficiency should be noted. Integration approaches and further study paths should be written up for future projects.

Deliverables

Completion of the research phase. This milestone should reflect the maturing of the research efforts, including detailed findings on the hardware paradigms’ impact on AGI performance, scalability, and computational efficiency. Further analysis of results suggesting integration or further study paths for the selected hardware paradigms and approaches.

Budget

$20,000 USD

Success Criterion

* Further detail on analysis for each of the considered quantum technologies * Analysis for each quantum technology on impact for performance, scalability, and computational efficiency * Write-up for each quantum technology on future integration approaches and/or study paths

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.

Dan Watkins

Project Owner

Project lead and owner. Research, identification, and analysis of quantum computing technologies.

View Profile

Dangulo42

Quantum Engineer

Quantum computing research, evaluation, and analysis.

View Profile

RonS_cqto

Quantum Engineer

Quantum computing research, evaluation, and analysis.

View Profile