Accelflare

Project Owner

Cognitive Quotient-Based AGI Motivation Framework

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

We propose a Cognitive Quotient (CQ)-based motivation framework designed for AGI systems within the Hyperon architecture. By quantifying Descriptive, Knowledge, and Reasoning capabilities, this modular system enables adaptive motivation shifts in AGI agents. The framework supports human-like and alien motivational logic, integrates with ECAN, DAS, and MeTTa, and is optimized for real-time reasoning. Initial deliverables include a functional prototype, symbolic logic library, and use-case validations in chatbot and virtual agent environments.

Project Tags:
Community and Collaboration

RFP Guidelines

Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Internal Proposal Review

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $40,000 USD
Proposals 19
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
$20,000_USD
Last Updated
13 May 2025

Milestone 1 - CQ Motivation Blueprint

Description

Design a formalized CQ-based motivational architecture. Define how Descriptive Knowledge and Reasoning (D-K-R) scores translate into symbolic motivational states. Establish motivational flow rules using FSM Regex and MeTTa representations.

Deliverables

Technical design document Symbolic model: FPBG + FSM + Regex mappings MeTTa templates for initial motivator logic Timeline and testing plan

Budget

$4,000 USD

Success Criterion

Accepted by reviewers as a valid, extensible symbolic framework Demonstrates logical motivation shift mapping from CQ values

Milestone 2 - Prototype Implementation & Agents

Description

Implement a working prototype that uses CQ scores to drive motivational changes in agents. Create a multi-agent interaction simulation (e.g. chatbot or metaverse-style agent) where goal prioritization changes based on D-K-R logic.

Deliverables

CQ core module in Python/MATLAB/Javascript/MeTTa Agent simulation system with CQ feedback loop Preliminary ECAN and DAS plugin mockups Technical validation results

Budget

$8,000 USD

Success Criterion

Agents demonstrate dynamic motivation adaptation Symbolic CQ scoring loop fully operational MeTTa-based motivator successfully drives decisions

Milestone 3 - Final Integration and Delivery

Description

Complete and package the CQ Motivator system. Finalize symbolic models polish test environments and deliver full technical documentation. Showcase limited research modules and outline the commercial application roadmap.

Deliverables

Final MeTTa motivator library Project documentation & integration guide Summary demo video of agent motivation dynamics Licensing structure and roadmap for commercial scale-up

Budget

$8,000 USD

Success Criterion

Reviewer-approved framework System fully tested in multi-agent setting Project published with research-facing documentation

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.