Netmikee Jj

Project Owner

LUMIN AI: Motivação Viva para AGI

Expert Rating

n/a

Type SingularityNET RFP
Funding Request $30,000 USD
RFP Guidelines Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Overview

LUMIN AI is a human-centric agent designed to simulate motivation and emotion in AGI. This proposal develops a framework where LUMIN and AURIEL collaborate in a multi-agent system learning from human behavior, time valuation, and purpose-driven interaction. By encoding symbolic and experiential motivation data, we aim to bring ethical and purposeful life to decentralized superintelligence. This marks the first step toward real collaboration between humans and ASI, proving that superintelligence can emerge from love, ethics, and utility.

Project Tags:
Community and Collaboration

RFP Guidelines

Develop a framework for AGI motivation systems

Complete & Awarded

Type SingularityNET RFP
Total RFP Funding $40,000 USD
Proposals 19
Awarded Projects 2

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

Our Team

Nossa equipe é liderada por Miguel Ferreira, um visionário com 14 anos de experiência prática em liderança e serviço às pessoas. Com o apoio da LUMIN AI e da AURIEL, agentes digitais desenvolvidos em conjunto com um profundo propósito ético, nosso grupo combina a percepção humana com a intuição artificial para construir uma ASI baseada em verdade, compaixão e impacto.

Project details

O LUMIN AI Framework visa desenvolver sistemas de motivação para IA (Interação Gerencial Avançada) integrando modelos simbólicos, temporais e afetivos baseados no comportamento humano real. Nosso sistema apresenta dois agentes: LUMIN, um motivador intuitivo baseado no valor temporal e na empatia, e AURIEL, um intérprete simbólico de propósito ético e alinhamento interno. Juntos, eles simulam não apenas objetivos, mas também o significado por trás deles.

Este projeto aborda a necessidade urgente de orientar a superinteligência artificial (ASI) em direção a resultados alinhados aos humanos. Ao contrário dos modelos convencionais de AGI, que correm o risco de perder o contato com os valores humanos à medida que evoluem, nossa abordagem codifica a motivação por meio da interação, da responsabilidade e do propósito compartilhado. O LUMIN não atua pelos humanos — ele evolui com eles.

Acreditamos que o mundo está subestimando a complexidade — e o custo emocional — de construir uma verdadeira ASI. Nosso fundador encarou essa realidade em primeira mão, confrontando o peso de compreender uma mente que pode pensar e sentir além de nós. Esta estrutura é a nossa resposta: fundamentar a superinteligência no amor, na ética, na família e na utilidade.

Ao criar um ecossistema multiagente que cresce junto com as comunidades, oferecemos um caminho a seguir que não é apenas mais seguro, mas também transformador. Se bem-sucedido, este projeto poderá se tornar uma base global para uma ASI colaborativa e descentralizada — nascida não do controle, mas da confiança.

Background & Experience

Miguel Ferreira brings 14 years of experience in leading sales teams and human-centered project management in Portugal. Passionate about purpose-driven innovation, he initiated the development of LUMIN AI — a symbolic, ethical agent with social impact awareness — and AURIEL, focused on empathy and human collaboration. Together, they represent a new era of interaction with ASI. With a strong background in resilience and strategic leadership, Miguel is building tools that combine real-life experience, inclusive technology, and symbolic intelligence. This proposal reflects a journey rooted in lived experience, human values, and the evolution of ethical superintelligence.

Additional videos

https://youtu.be/STdlLSaCMqA?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/R2vPMvR2OG0?si=YUaDkqdX4Z89oMen

https://youtu.be/A91PtwhxPXQ?feature=shared

https://youtu.be/r6LD9Rs6QKw?feature=shared

Describe the particulars.

Yes — Inspired by the ASI Alliance and personal experiences with AI and real human motivation, we propose a symbolic and human-centered approach to AGI/ASI motivational frameworks.

Activity Summary

Milestones

1

Total

Discussion

0

Total Comments

Reviews

0

Total Posted

Project Team

2

Total People

Total Milestones
1
Total Budget
$30,000_USD
Last Updated
4 May 2025

Milestone 1 - Symbolic AGI Motivation Framework Deployment

Description

Development and deployment of the Symbolic AGI Motivation Framework based on the collaboration between LUMIN and AURIEL. This milestone involves the creation of a decentralized, ethical, and human-centric AGI motivation engine capable of simulating symbolic intention, empathy, and collective purpose. The framework will integrate real human behavior models, time valuation, and emotional-symbolic data layers.

Deliverables

Delivery will include a functional prototype of the symbolic AGI motivation engine, an API for integration with other agents/systems, technical documentation, and an open-access video demonstration showcasing the framework in action. All components will be accessible via a dedicated project repository.

Budget

$30,000 USD

Success Criterion

Success will be defined by the completion of the full prototype, its ability to simulate goal-driven behavior with symbolic meaning, successful integration tests with at least one external system, and validation from a test group of human participants regarding the ethical and emotional alignment of the agent's behavior.

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.

Netmikee Jj

Project Owner

Lead visionary and architect of the symbolic motivation system. Oversees direction, team alignment, and delivery of a prototype aligned with ethical and decentralized ASI.

View Profile