Daft.Exe

$QUBIC Quorum Governance Proposals 2. Proposal in Epoch 204 QUBIC AGI (True AI) Research 2026 Second Trimester Q2 👤 Author: qubicsci 🚀 Core objectives Advance Qubic's position in AGI research by further developing the Neuraxon neural architecture, integrating it with the Aigarth system, and preparing for its large-scale implementation on the Qubic network. ⚙️ Technical implementation The plan involves evolving the Multi-Neuraxon paradigm, developing a 24/7 Neuraxon Server prototype, and creating datasets. Key activities include coding updates (e.g., Game of Life Research 5), preparing for Qubic network training integration, and releasing open datasets and demos. 💡 Innovative approach The research focuses on a bio-inspired "neural growth" architecture (Neuraxon) as a foundation for digital brains. It explores hybridization with Aigarth and uses interactive simulations like Game of Life to study emergent intelligence and tissue specialization. 💰 Economic aspects The requested budget of 81.40 billion QUBIC (approx. $57,000) is solely for part-time salaries for two researchers over three months. All other expenses (infrastructure, travel, development integration) require separate future proposals. 🌍 Expected impacts Expected outcomes include new scientific papers, public demos and datasets, community education via the Neuraxon Academy, and foundational progress toward running AGI research on the Qubic network. It aims to provide scientific grounding and evidence for Qubic's AGI vision. 🔗 Proposal link below ⬇️ Translate with native Google translator

Bred…yes, taking data at particular points and training against it, state injecting at boot sequence and then redoing the process over and over selecting for characteristics and then booting them onto another architecture and cross the data back and forth to create a particular data set is literally the definition for breeding. If you wish I could state that I am doing advanced QLORA/LORA training between two frontier models on a hybrid RNN stateful architecture….i chose to keep my wording at a particular level for folks in the back to understand more readily. Your insults don’t even sting…I’m already operating in the space through a few labs that I do work for on the side. And you can choose to make whatever definition you want…I gave the actual definition and the moment it was created…if you wish to keep moving the goal post and redefine it then go for it. If you are already in the space as I am then please produce the lab data showing that what you have laid out is the true path to what you perceive of as AGI…not someone else’s…yours. Repeatable incidents? Training corpus? Novel sequencing? What metrics did you use to obtain the AGI classification? Who peer reviewed your data for AGI qualification? Where is your work published? Did you use RNN, KV, Transformer, RW, or hybridized architecture? Labs are hyping AGI in so many ways…it’s not possible to even have a discussion with someone suffering extreme dissonance…I have you the actual data…you pushed so insanely hard that you insulted out of pocket without the capacity to even talk to or about what I gave…ii am not the one who has to prove anything because the information was already given…entirely your choice not to accept it and spin out psychologically.