Artemis City Whitepaper V2: An Architecture for Autonomous, Self-Evolving AI

Artemis_City: A Novel Agentic Operating System Architecture

Abstract

Artemis_City is presented as a new class of agentic operating system (AOS) designed for autonomous AI networks. It moves beyond conventional agent wrappers (e.g. AutoGPT, BabyAGI) by providing a full infrastructure-level architecture for managing multiple intelligent agents, persistent memory, and adaptive learning. Key innovations include an OS-like kernel for orchestration, a hybrid memory bus with a rigorous sync protocol, a validation-gated Hebbian learning engine, and a CI/CD-style governance model for safe self-evolution. Grounded in theories of embodied cognition, morphological computation, and cognitive morphogenesis, and validated with quantitative benchmarks, Artemis_City’s design facilitates the emergence of robust, scalable, and auditable agentic intelligence.

1. Executive Summary & Vision

Artemis_City represents a paradigm shift from single-agent loop frameworks to a full-stack operating system for agentic AI. It treats autonomous agents not as stand-alone instances but as orchestrated components of a larger cognitive ecosystem.

Core Innovations: An AOS kernel for scheduling and sandboxing, a hybrid memory bus unifying a human-readable knowledge graph (Obsidian) with a machine-efficient vector store (Supabase), and a Hebbian plasticity module for continuous knowledge reorganization.
Theoretical Foundations: The design is inspired by embodied cognition, morphological computation, and cognitive morphogenesis, turning philosophical concepts into engineering realities.
Comparative Advantages: Addresses the core failures of early agent wrappers (fragility, memory loss, poor scalability) by providing a governed, explainable, and resilient framework for multi-agent collaboration.
Future Roadmap: Planned enhancements include reinforcement-driven routing, inhibitory control, a specified memory decay policy, and plastic workflows, allowing the system to evolve its own operational pathways.

This whitepaper provides the definitive engineering blueprint for Artemis_City, intended for AGI researchers, cognitive systems engineers, and AI architects.

2. Philosophical and Theoretical Underpinnings

Artemis_City’s design is deeply informed by four key theories that provide a philosophical compass for its architecture.

2.1 Embodied Cognition (The 4E Model)

Intelligence arises from the dynamic interaction between an agent’s mind, body, and environment. In Artemis_City, agents are embodied processes with defined digital bodies (tools, APIs, sandboxes), embedded within the larger OS, enactive through their interactions with memory, and extended via the shared knowledge graph.

2.2 Morphological Computation

The system’s structure offloads computational work. By encoding knowledge in a structured causal graph, complex reasoning is transformed into efficient graph traversal, drastically reducing reliance on expensive LLM inference. The architecture itself computes.

2.3 Validation-Gated Hebbian Plasticity

Inspired by neuroplasticity (“neurons that fire together, wire together”), the Hebbian Learning Engine reinforces connections between knowledge nodes used in successful, validated reasoning chains. This is not blind reinforcement; a crucial validation gate, managed by governance agents, prevents the system from “learning” or strengthening hallucinatory or incorrect information.

2.4 Cognitive Morphogenesis

The system is designed for developmental growth. Like a biological embryo, it can differentiate its cognitive structures over time, spawning new specialized agents or memory clusters in response to recurring challenges, allowing its architecture to evolve. Detailed Architecture The Artemis_City architecture is organized into several core components, each responsible for a facet of the system’s overall intelligence. In this section, we break down the architecture into logical sections: the Kernel and Orchestration Flow, the Agent Registry and Sandboxing mechanisms, the Memory Bus including the Obsidian-based graph and Supabase vector store, the File-based Causal Graph representation of knowledge, the Hebbian Learning Engine that adapts this knowledge base, the Agent Governance subsystem with blocklists and scoring, and the Visual Cortex which provides a graph-based visualization and interface. Each subsection details the design and function of these components, and how they interrelate in the operation of Artemis_City. Kernel Structure and Orchestration Flow At the heart of Artemis_City is the Kernel, a central orchestrator analogous to an operating system kernel. The kernel is responsible for scheduling tasks, routing communications, and managing resources among the various agents. When an input or goal enters Artemis_City (e.g., a user query or an autonomous objective), the kernel decides how to break this down and which agents should handle which parts. This design follows a multi-agent orchestration approach where the emphasis is on coordination. As the Kore.ai analysis noted, “orchestration transforms AI into a coherent, governed, and future-ready capability”[11], ensuring specialized agents integrate rather than collide. Architecture: The kernel maintains a global state including a common context that agents can read and write to (this forms part of the memory bus, described later). It uses an event-driven loop: each agent can emit events (e.g., “subtask completed” or “new data ingested”) and subscribe to events (e.g., “need analysis” or “conflict detected”). The kernel listens for events and invokes the appropriate agent or set of agents in response. For example, if an agent responsible for web browsing finishes gathering information, it might emit an event that triggers a summarizer agent to process that information. The orchestration flow can be sequential or parallel depending on the situation. Artemis_City can implement patterns such as: sequential pipelines (agent A’s output goes to agent B, etc.), concurrent agents (multiple agents work in parallel on the same problem and results are merged), or adaptive routing (the next agent is chosen based on intermediate results). These align with known multi-agent patterns like those documented by Microsoft’s Azure guide (sequential vs concurrent orchestration)[25][26], though Artemis_City can dynamically switch patterns if needed, making it very flexible. A simple orchestration example: Suppose Artemis_City is tasked with answering a complex research question. The kernel might start an Researcher Agent to gather data, a Analyst Agent to interpret that data, and a Writer Agent to compose the final answer. It may run Researcher and Analyst concurrently if they can work in parallel on different subtopics, then collect their outputs. The kernel ensures that shared memory is updated and that each agent sees the up-to-date context. The orchestration also involves conflict resolution – if two agents produce inconsistent results, the kernel can invoke a Evaluator Agent to assess which is more credible, or even spawn a new agent to reconcile differences. This echoes the dynamic role allocation and conflict resolution capabilities identified as essential in multi-agent systems[27][28]. Flow Control: Artemis_City’s kernel uses a combination of static plans and dynamic decision-making. Some workflows are pre-defined (especially for common tasks, to optimize performance), but the kernel can also make on-the-fly decisions. A governance rule might be: if a task is taking too long with current agents, spawn a helper agent or escalate to a human. These rules are part of the kernel’s policy. Importantly, because our agents may be learning and the system state evolving, the kernel itself can utilize meta-learning – adjusting its scheduling strategies over time as it observes which orchestrations work best. Thus, the kernel is not a fixed algorithm but a semi-adaptive coordinator that is continually tuned through experience. In summary, the Artemis_City kernel is the central brain stem of the architecture: it doesn’t do the heavy cognitive work (the specialized agents do that), but it ensures all parts function in unison, much like a conductor of an orchestra. This kernel-centric design differentiates Artemis_City from more naive agent wrappers by introducing a robust, modular backbone that can scale to enterprise needs (multiple simultaneous tasks, dozens of agents, real-time responses) while maintaining control and oversight. Agent Registry and Sandboxing All agents in Artemis_City are registered in a centralized Agent Registry. The registry is essentially a directory of available agents, each with metadata including its capabilities (what tools or knowledge domains it has), its trust level or score, and its current status (idle, busy, quarantined, etc.). When the kernel needs to assign a task, it consults the registry to find suitable agents or to instantiate new ones if needed. This design allows agents to be plug-and-play – one can add a new agent (for example, a financial analysis agent) to the registry and immediately the kernel can start utilizing it when relevant tasks arise. Sandboxing: With great power comes great responsibility – having autonomous agents demands caution. Artemis_City employs sandboxing techniques to ensure that agents operate within bounds. Each agent runs in a constrained environment where its access to external systems (files, network, APIs) is mediated by the kernel’s permission system. By default, agents can only interact with the world through the interfaces Artemis_City provides (e.g., memory bus, approved tools). If an agent tries to perform an action outside its scope, the kernel intercepts it. This prevents errant or malicious behavior from causing harm. It’s similar to how mobile apps are sandboxed on modern operating systems, or how web browsers sandbox scripts. One application of sandboxing in our context is for ethics and safety testing. We can run new or modified agents in a simulated environment first – effectively a sandbox mode – before deploying them on real tasks. As IBM’s AI governance guidelines suggest, “AI sandboxing allows developers to study unintended ethical dilemmas before exposing agents to real users”[29]. Artemis_City can simulate certain scenarios (for instance, through test queries or dummy data) to observe how an agent behaves. If it violates any rules or shows problematic behavior, it can be refined or blocked. The Agent Registry might mark such an agent as “quarantined” so the kernel will not assign it real tasks until approved. Governance Agents: An interesting innovation we include is the notion of governance agents or watchdogs. These are special agents whose role is to monitor other agents’ outputs and interactions. They operate within the same system but have elevated monitoring privileges instead of domain task skills. As IBM experts muse, working agents could be paired with “governance agents designed to monitor and evaluate other agents,” acting like a hall monitor to catch anomalies[30]. In Artemis_City, a governance agent might scan all messages an agent sends to the memory or to external APIs, checking for compliance (no leaking of sensitive data, no disallowed content) and quality (is it making sense, is it factual?). If something is off, the governance agent can flag it to the kernel, which can then intervene – possibly pausing the agent, resetting it, or requiring a human operator to approve the next step. This layered approach means Artemis_City is not just powerful, but safe and controllable. Agent Scoring: The registry maintains a score or reputation for each agent. This score is updated based on performance metrics – success rate of tasks, accuracy of outputs, alignment with instructions, etc. Over time, the kernel can use these scores to bias routing of tasks to more reliable agents. It’s analogous to how one might trust an experienced employee over a new hire for critical tasks. Additionally, metrics like context relevance, factual accuracy, response quality could be tracked per agent, similar to how IBM’s governance tooling is integrating specialized metrics (like context relevance, faithfulness) to monitor agent performance[31]. Artemis_City leverages these scores in decision-making: for example, if an agent with a low alignment score attempts an action that could be sensitive, the system might require a higher threshold of validation or switch to a backup agent. In effect, the Agent Registry and Sandboxing layer enforce a principle of least privilege and accountability: agents only do what they are permitted and qualified to do, their actions are transparent to oversight modules, and their past behavior influences their future authority. This design ensures that even as we scale up to many agents, possibly with different creators or versions, the overall system stays robust against individual failures and aligned with its governing policies. Memory Bus: Obsidian Vault and Supabase Vector Store Artemis_City employs a hybrid memory system to serve both the precision of structured knowledge and the breadth of neural embeddings. We call this unified memory interface the Memory Bus, as it acts like a data backbone to which all agents connect. The memory bus comprises two primary components: an Obsidian Vault (a collection of Markdown files forming a knowledge base) and a Supabase Vector Database (for fast similarity search and recall). Together, they provide the agents with both a human-like memory (notes and links) and a machine-like memory (dense vectors for semantic search). Obsidian Vault (File-based Knowledge Graph): Obsidian is a popular knowledge management tool that stores notes as Markdown files with wiki-style links. Artemis_City uses an Obsidian-compatible format for its internal knowledge repository. Each concept, entity, or persistent memory is stored as a Markdown file (for example, Project_X.md might contain notes about Project X). Relations between notes are represented by hyperlinks (e.g., [[Project_X]] mentioned in Idea_Y.md to denote a connection). This effectively forms a knowledge graph where files are nodes and links are edges. The Obsidian graph view provides a visualization of this network[5][32]. The benefit of this approach is that the knowledge is explicit and interpretable – not just to the AI, but to human developers or analysts who can open the vault and inspect what the AI “knows” about something. It also allows leveraging a rich ecosystem of Obsidian plugins or tools for things like search, version control, etc. To illustrate, suppose the system learns a new fact: “Artemis_City was deployed in a financial simulation on Jan 1, 2026.” This could be stored in a note Artemis_City_Deployment.md with content about that event, and linked to other relevant notes like Financial_Simulation.md and Timeline.md. In graph view, a user (or an agent) would see the Artemis_City node connected to nodes for the simulation and timeline, giving context. This file-based memory supports causality and chronology as well – an agent can write an “Observation” section under a note with time-stamped notes, effectively giving a chain of events. Indeed, the Obsidian Memory plugin documentation describes storing AI conversation memories as Markdown with YAML timestamps and links, so that “each entity is stored as a Markdown file” and relationships are captured via [[link]] syntax for graph visualization[33][34]. Artemis_City builds upon this concept, extending it beyond chat memories to all forms of knowledge the agents acquire. Supabase Vector Store: While the Obsidian vault is great for structured knowledge and human readability, it’s not optimized for fuzzy recall or large document similarity search. That’s where the Supabase component comes in. Supabase (with its Postgres + pgvector) acts as a vector database, where embeddings of text or images can be stored and queried. Whenever an agent reads a document or processes a chunk of text, Artemis_City can generate an embedding (using an LLM or embedding model) and store it in the Supabase vector index along with metadata (which note it came from, or which agent/context). Then, when an agent needs to remember something semantically similar, it can query this store by vector similarity, retrieving possibly relevant info even if exact keywords differ. Supabase’s AI toolkit explicitly supports storing and indexing embeddings for such AI applications[6], making it a fitting choice. For example, if an agent is asked a question that wasn’t seen before but is semantically close to a previous question, a vector search in memory might surface the prior answer or note as relevant context. This addresses the context-length limitations of LLMs by having an external long-term memory that can be searched. Additionally, Supabase can serve as a scalable, persistent backend that multiple Artemis_City instances could share or sync with (useful in distributed deployments). The memory bus would coordinate consistency between the Obsidian vault and the Supabase store – for instance, each time a Markdown note is created or updated, any significant text content is embedded and upserted to the vector DB; conversely, if new data comes via vector search, an agent might choose to write a corresponding note to make it explicit. Memory Access Patterns: Agents can access memory through unified APIs. They can query for specific notes (structured query: “open node X”), search for text in notes (keyword search or regex across Markdown), or do semantic search (which goes to Supabase). The memory bus ensures these queries are served efficiently. For instance, a search_nodes query might look for a term across note titles[35], whereas a vector query might be an embedding lookup for the query text. The bus might first try an exact note lookup (for speed), then a fuzzy text search, then a vector search as fallback – blending precision and recall. Causal and Contextual Linking: One special aspect of our memory design is emphasizing causal links. Beyond simple hyperlinks, Artemis_City supports typed links such as [[causes::]] or [[subtask_of::]] etc., to mark specific relationships. These are stored in the Markdown (as some in the Obsidian community do with “link types” or via attributes) and allow the graph to represent not just associations but directed relationships (e.g., Task A -> Task B in sequence, or Fact X leads to Conclusion Y). Such causal graph representation can enable reasoning algorithms to traverse “why” and “how” paths, not just “what” relates to what. It’s an area of active development, taking inspiration from “autobiographical causality” in memory research[36] – where experiences are stored with cause-effect links. In Artemis_City, if an agent infers that “X implies Y”, it can record that as a link in memory, effectively building a knowledge graph with reasoning traces. Future query answering can then leverage these without having to rediscover them from scratch. In sum, the Memory Bus provides both brains of the operation: one symbolic/graphical and one sub-symbolic/distributed. This dual system is analogous to how humans have an explicit declarative memory (facts we can state) and a more associative memory (patterns we just recognize). By combining them, Artemis_City agents can retrieve precise information when needed, but also benefit from broad pattern matching when dealing with novel inputs. File-Based Causal Graph Representation As hinted above, Artemis_City’s internal knowledge is structured as a causal graph encoded in a file system. This is not a generic knowledge graph of triples as in semantic web, but a purpose-built representation tailored to capturing cause-effect, dependency, and influence relationships among pieces of information and agent actions. We devote a section to this because it is a distinguishing feature of Artemis_City – the system doesn’t just accumulate data; it organizes it in a way that mirrors the logical and temporal structure of its experience. Each Markdown file in the Obsidian vault can be seen as a node in a graph. The content of the file holds properties or a narrative about that node, and any link to another file denotes an edge. We enrich this basic model by allowing edges to carry semantics (via link labels). For example, a note “Investigation_42” might have a line stating - [[Investigation_41]] -> Outcome influenced this to indicate the prior investigation influenced the current one. Or - [[UserQuery123]] causes [[AgentPlan123]] to link a user query node to an agent’s plan node as cause and effect. By using a simple arrow notation or attributes, these get rendered in Obsidian as links (for human viewing) and parsed by Artemis_City’s memory manager as a directed edge with type. The result is a rich graph where some subgraphs represent, say, a chain of reasoning or a sequence of events. When an agent forms a plan comprising steps A, B, C, the system could create a “plan node” that links to step A node, which in turn links to step B, etc., creating a chain. If step B fails, an annotation might link that event to the plan node as well (“Plan failed because B failed”). All this contextual information is stored in files, meaning it’s transparent and auditable. This approach yields several benefits: - Traceability: We can trace why a certain decision was made by following the graph links backward (e.g., this conclusion node is linked from these evidence nodes, etc.). It serves as an explanation framework. - Incremental Learning: As new knowledge arrives, we add nodes and links. It’s easy to do partial updates (just add a file or a link) without retraining a whole model. The graph can grow indefinitely, unlike an LLM’s fixed context window. - Conflict Detection: If two contradictory nodes exist (e.g., one says “X happened” another says “X did not happen”), a governance agent or the reasoning algorithm can notice that by traversing and seeing inconsistent edges. This might prompt a resolution step (flagging for review or having a debate between agents). - Emergent Structure: Over time, the graph’s topology itself may reveal insights. We might see clusters form around certain topics, or certain nodes becoming hubs (highly connected). This emergent topology is effectively the “shape” of the AI’s knowledge. Researchers have noted that in self-organizing memory systems, “dimensional structure emerges rather than being engineered”[37]. Artemis_City embraces that: we set basic rules for linking, but we allow the network to self-organize as it grows. In the Visual Cortex section, we’ll discuss how we visualize and interpret this emergent graph. To maintain performance, this file-based graph is supplemented by indexing (for example, the Supabase vector store to quickly find relevant nodes, as already described). But once a set of relevant nodes is identified, the graph can be traversed in-memory or via a graph database approach for complex queries (we could integrate a graph database if needed, but Markdown plus some in-memory graph structure may suffice for now). A formal way to define the knowledge graph is: G = (V, E, λ) where V is the set of Markdown files (nodes), E is the set of directed edges, and λ: E -> L is a labeling function mapping each edge to a relation type (drawn from a set L of possible link types, e.g., {causes, implies, contradicts, part_of, etc.}). Each node v ∈ V carries data (the content of the file, which could include text, lists of observations, etc.). The causal graph specifically is the subgraph of G where λ(e) indicates a causal or temporal relation (like leads_to, causes, precedes). We might maintain separate adjacency lists for causal edges versus general associative links. Agents interacting with the graph typically don’t do arbitrary graph algorithms, but rather follow paths relevant to their task: e.g., a reasoning agent might do a depth-first traversal from a question node through cause-effect edges to gather supporting info. Another might do a breadth-first search around a concept to get related context. The design challenge is ensuring the graph doesn’t become too densely connected to be useful (hence the need for Hebbian pruning and keeping it coherent). In conclusion, the file-based causal graph is Artemis_City’s way of structuring knowledge in a meaningful way. Instead of an opaque memory or a bag of texts, we have a living network of information. It reflects not just what the system knows, but how those pieces of knowledge interrelate. This structure is critical for advanced reasoning and is a core differentiator of Artemis_City’s architecture. Hebbian Learning Engine Building on the earlier discussion of Hebbian plasticity in theory, here we describe the implementation and role of the Hebbian Learning Engine within Artemis_City. This engine continuously processes the activity and updates within the system to adjust the strengths of connections in the knowledge graph (and potentially the parameters of agents, if they have learning components), ensuring that the system’s performance improves over time through use. Mechanisms: The Hebbian engine monitors co-activations in the system. Co-activation can mean several things in our context: - Two knowledge nodes frequently referenced together in successful problem solving. - An agent repeatedly following a particular sequence of steps that yield good results. - A particular question and a particular answer that consistently go together. Whenever such patterns are detected, the engine applies a weight update. If we denote w(i,j) as the weight of the link between node i and j, a simple rule is: Δw(i,j)=η⋅a_i⋅a_j, where a_i,a_j represent the activation (or some measure of importance) of nodes i and j in a given successful episode, and η is a learning rate. This is a mathematical way of saying: if i and j are active together, increase the weight connecting them[38]. In practice, the engine might give a small boost to the link every time they co-occur in a solution. Conversely, for decay, we might slightly decrease weights for links that haven’t been used in a long time, or if an attempted usage led to failure (negative reinforcement). These operations correspond to what Kairos et al. formalized as LTP and LTD analogues in adaptive knowledge graphs[7]. Validation Gate: Not all co-activations are good – sometimes two pieces of misinformation could co-occur and we don’t want to reinforce that. Therefore, Artemis_City’s Hebbian engine is validation-gated. It listens to signals from governance and validation agents or modules about the outcome quality. If a reasoning chain passes multi-dimensional quality checks (logical consistency, factual grounding, no policy violations), only then are the connections involved reinforced[21]. If the outcome was poor, the connections might instead be left unchanged or even slightly penalized. This ensures, for example, that if an agent happened to use a wrong formula and got a wrong answer, the system doesn’t mistakenly “learn” that wrong formula as a useful path. In essence, the Hebbian learning in Artemis_City is not unsupervised Hebb’s rule in the wild; it’s augmented with an error feedback loop to guard against garbage in, garbage out. Scope of Plasticity: The primary locus of Hebbian updates is the knowledge graph (adjusting link weights), but it could also influence agent configurations. For instance, if two agents often work together successfully (say a ResearchAgent frequently feeding a SummaryAgent), the system could strengthen the association between those agents – e.g., biasing the kernel to pair them or even merging them into a pipeline. Likewise, if an agent’s certain internal rule or prompt seems to always trigger good responses, the agent’s internal parameters might adapt (assuming the agent supports learning; if not, Artemis_City might note this externally). However, since many agents might be stateless LLM calls, the main adaptation happens at the system level (in memory and orchestration) rather than within the black-box of an LLM. Outcomes: Over time, the Hebbian engine will cause a kind of specialization and streamlining: - Frequently used knowledge becomes “hub” nodes as their links to other nodes strengthen, effectively making them easier to retrieve (like indexing). - Rarely used or spurious links drop off (either literally removed if weight < threshold or effectively ignored due to low weight), which reduces noise. - The system might discover shortcuts: if A always leads to D via B and C, and this is validated often, perhaps a direct link from A to D can be introduced (emergent connection formation[7]) signifying a conceptual leap or a generalized rule learned. - Similarly, analogies may form: if scenario X and scenario Y have structurally similar solution graphs, the engine might connect X to Y in the graph, indicating a learned analogy. Next time, solving X could remind the system of Y’s solution. This continuous reorganization is what makes Artemis_City’s knowledge a “living memory.” It’s aligned with the idea from the Living Memory Graph concept that knowledge structures must reorient as understanding evolves[39][40]. In fact, one could say Artemis_City’s Hebbian engine is an initial practical step towards that vision – implementing edge reweighting and connection updates. Future iterations might even incorporate more complex reorganization like rotating vector spaces or multi-dimensional scaling of concepts as described by Curry (2025)[40], but those remain advanced frontiers. For now, the Hebbian learning engine ensures Artemis_City is not static. As the system is used, it literally rewires itself in small increments every day. This should lead to improved efficiency (less brute-force searching for relevant info as the graph self-optimizes) and improved competence (adapting to the domain it’s applied in by strengthening relevant knowledge). It moves us closer to an AI that remembers, adapts, and learns from its own life – a key step towards general intelligence. Agent Governance, Blocklists, and Scoring Ensuring that the behavior of a constellation of autonomous agents remains aligned with human intentions and ethical norms is a paramount concern. Artemis_City incorporates a multi-layered Agent Governance system that includes blocklists, rule enforcement, continuous evaluation, and scoring mechanisms to keep agents in check and to give stakeholders visibility and control over the AI’s operations. Governance Policies: At the highest level, Artemis_City allows the definition of governance policies – rules that all agents must follow. These can be content policies (e.g., do not generate hate speech, do not reveal confidential information) or operational policies (e.g., an agent must always verify a financial transaction with a governance agent before execution). These policies are enforced through a combination of static blocklists/allowlists and dynamic checks. For example, certain keywords or regex patterns can be blocked from outputs (to handle obvious disallowed content), similar to how the OpenAI moderation API filters content. There is an internal blocklist that if an agent’s message matches, the kernel will censor or refuse that output, prompting the agent to reconsider (or escalate to a human if necessary). Contextual Blocklists: Beyond static strings, Artemis_City’s governance is context-aware. If an agent is in a particular mode (say “medical advice mode”), it may be blocked from making jokes or irrelevant commentary that would be allowed in casual chat. The system can adjust the filters depending on the active context and agent role. This reduces false positives and ensures rules are applied where they matter most. Continuous Monitoring and Agent-to-Agent Oversight: As mentioned earlier, governance (watchdog) agents monitor interactions. They can run more sophisticated checks than simple blocklists, such as evaluating the factual accuracy of outputs or assessing the sentiment/tone if that’s a concern. They effectively serve as real-time auditors of agent behavior. For instance, if an agent begins to drift off policy (maybe it hasn’t said anything blocklisted, but it’s advising something unsafe), the oversight agent can intervene by alerting the kernel. The kernel might then put that agent on pause, replace it with a backup agent, or ask for human review. This reflects the idea of agent-to-agent monitoring and conflict resolution rules recommended for complex agent ecosystems[41]. Emergency Stop and Safe Modes: Artemis_City includes an “emergency stop” mechanism – a command that can immediately halt all agent activities. This could be triggered manually by an operator or automatically if certain severe conditions are met (e.g., multiple agents are looping uncontrollably, or a catastrophic decision is detected). Each agent also has a safe mode where it reduces its operation to minimal scope, perhaps only responding to direct requests. This is akin to containment procedures suggested for malfunctioning AI[42], ensuring that if something goes awry, it can be quickly neutralized. Scoring and Reputation: Every agent accumulates a reputation score over time. This score might be multi-dimensional – e.g., an alignment score (how often it needed censorship or produced off-policy output), an accuracy score (how correct or useful its outputs have been), an efficiency score (speed and resource usage), etc. These scores are logged and can be inspected via a governance dashboard. They serve two main purposes: (1) The system uses them to prefer better agents for tasks and to decide when to retrain or deprecate an agent that consistently underperforms. (2) Human operators or researchers can use them to get insight into the health of each agent, similar to how one monitors processes in an OS with metrics. IBM’s concept of specialized metrics for agentic systems is relevant here[31]. Artemis_City’s governance module, much like IBM’s watsonx.governance, tracks metrics like context relevance (does the agent stick to the query context?), faithfulness (does it stay true to sources?), harmfulness (any toxic content flags?), etc. These are aggregated into the agent’s score. A consistently low score might trigger automatic retraining or off-boarding of that agent from critical tasks. Audit Logs: Transparency is crucial for trust. Artemis_City maintains detailed logs of agent actions, decisions, and any governance interventions. Every time a blocklist triggers or a governance agent overrides something, it’s logged with timestamp and reason. This audit trail is invaluable for debugging and for compliance in sensitive deployments (finance, healthcare, etc.), providing an explanation of “why did the AI do X?” after the fact. By combining these governance features, Artemis_City strives to be not only autonomous but also alignable and controllable. Autonomy is powerful, but unguided it can run into serious issues. Our governance architecture ensures we get the benefits of agentic AI (speed, adaptability, parallelism) while maintaining a firm grip on risk. It’s an evolving area – as the system scales, we may integrate more advanced techniques like formal verification of agent plans or sandbox simulations of high-stakes decisions before executing them (like having an agent simulate consequences with another agent before acting in the real world). But even in the current form, Artemis_City sets a high standard for agent governance, treating it as a first-class component rather than an afterthought. Visual Cortex: Graph View and Emergent Topology Artemis_City includes a subsystem whimsically nicknamed the Visual Cortex – essentially the interface and toolkit for visualizing and interacting with the knowledge graph and agent networks. This serves both an internal purpose (agents can gain a “bird’s-eye view” of their own cognition structure) and an external one (humans can inspect and guide the system). The analogy to a visual cortex is apt because it processes the “sight” of the system’s mind: the shape and connections of knowledge and processes, which is crucial for meta-cognition. Graphical View of Knowledge: The Visual Cortex primarily manifests as a graph view of the Obsidian vault. As described earlier, the Obsidian vault can be visualized as nodes and edges[32]. Artemis_City leverages this by either using Obsidian’s own UI or a custom web interface to display the knowledge network. Each node (note) is a dot; links are lines connecting them. The interface can allow filtering by type (e.g., highlight causal links vs reference links) or by recency (to see recent additions glowing brighter). This visualization can show clusters of information – for instance, you might see a tight cluster of nodes related to a particular project or problem the agents worked on, indicating a subgraph of expertise. Graph view of a knowledge base (illustrative example). Each node represents a concept or memory (stored as a file), and links denote relationships or references. Artemis_City’s Visual Cortex uses such graph visualizations to observe the emergent topology of its knowledge network, helping both agents and humans identify clusters, hubs, and connection patterns. The above embedded image demonstrates a generic example of what the graph view might look like. In Artemis_City, this emergent topology isn’t static – as the Hebbian engine works, for example, frequently used links might be drawn thicker or closer, whereas weak connections might fade. Over time, the visualization provides a qualitative sense of how the AI’s knowledge is structured and how it’s evolving. For instance, one might notice a new hub node emerging as the system learns a lot about a new topic, or a previously central node becoming peripheral as its information becomes outdated (perhaps due to memory decay or being supplanted by newer knowledge). Topology and Emergence: We use the term “emergent topology” to emphasize that the graph structure is not manually designed but is a result of the system’s ongoing operation. Patterns in this topology can be analyzed. For example: - Communities/Clusters: Graph algorithms like community detection could identify coherent regions in the knowledge graph, which might correspond to concepts or tasks that frequently interrelate. This can inform if maybe a new specialized agent should be created for that cluster. - Degree Distribution: Some nodes will have high degree (connected to many others). These might represent very general concepts or pivotal memories. If a node becomes too connected, it could also signal an abstraction that might need to be factored (maybe the concept is too broad and could be split). - Path Analysis: The presence of multi-hop connections and their lengths might correlate with reasoning difficulty. If answering questions often involves traversing 5-6 edges, maybe the system can create shortcuts as discussed or a summary node to reduce path length. Agents themselves can query the graph structure. A meta-reasoner agent might ask: “show me which parts of the graph were most active in the last week” or “find any nodes that link two otherwise separate clusters (bridges)”. This is akin to self-reflection – the system inspecting the layout of its own mind. Visualizing Agent Interactions: Beyond knowledge, the Visual Cortex can also show the agent collaboration graph. We can have a view where each agent is a node, and an edge between agents indicates communication or hand-off of tasks. Over a day of operation, one could see which agents talk to which. This can expose, for example, that Agent A and Agent B collaborate frequently (maybe too frequently, indicating redundancy, or very effectively, indicating a useful synergy). If an agent is isolated (no one ever sends tasks to it), maybe it’s not useful and can be pruned. This agent graph is dynamic per session or scenario, but patterns can be gleaned historically. Human-Interactive Interface: The Visual Cortex is also interactive. A human operator can click on a node to inspect the content of that note, or on an agent node to see its stats and recent activities. They could manually add a link if they know two concepts should be related (providing feedback to the AI), or disable a link if it’s spurious. In essence, it provides a GUI for the AI’s brain. This greatly aids debugging and development. It also enables semi-automated knowledge engineering: while a lot of learning is automated, a human expert could guide the AI by reorganizing part of the graph via this interface, which the AI will then respect (with governance making sure agents don’t override human-set links without very good reason). In more advanced use, we envision the Visual Cortex enabling something like topology-based queries: e.g., “show me any emergent cycles in the reasoning graph” (a cycle might indicate a feedback loop or redundant reasoning). Or “identify if there’s a short path between concept X and Y that I haven’t explicitly connected” (possibly revealing hidden connections). There’s active research on knowledge graph completion that could tie in here. In conclusion, the Visual Cortex underscores Artemis_City’s commitment to transparency and introspection. By having a literal view into the evolving structure of knowledge and agent interplay, we are able to ensure that Artemis_City doesn’t become an inscrutable black box. Instead, it has a degree of observability uncommon in AI systems, which is invaluable for both safety and understanding. The emergent topology visualized by the Visual Cortex is effectively the fingerprint of Artemis_City’s intelligence – unique, growing, and informative. Comparative Analysis with Existing Agentic Systems With the architecture and capabilities of Artemis_City laid out, it is instructive to compare this system to other approaches in the agentic AI landscape. We examine how Artemis_City contrasts with and improves upon popular frameworks like AutoGPT, BabyAGI, and research platforms like AgentVerse. This comparative analysis highlights Artemis_City’s novel contributions and situates it in the context of ongoing developments in autonomous agent design. AutoGPT and BabyAGI: Agent Wrappers vs. Agent OS AutoGPT burst onto the scene as an early demonstration of an “AI agent” built on GPT-4. It essentially wraps an LLM in a loop where the model can generate tasks for itself, execute code, browse, etc., iteratively until a goal is reached. BabyAGI similarly is a task-driven loop that uses an LLM to create, prioritize, and complete tasks. These were exciting first steps, but they have notable limitations. AutoGPT in particular has been noted to be “prone to errors from self-feedback loops” – it can get stuck cycling on the same idea or make logical mistakes without correction – and it “may struggle with long-term memory retention”, plus its recursive calls can rack up high costs[8]. BabyAGI, while lighter, “faces challenges in scalability and integration… lacking advanced features like debugging tools or extensive API integrations”, and requires significant user setup to be truly effective[9]. Artemis_City fundamentally differs by providing an operating system-like backbone rather than being a single agent script. Instead of one agent trying to do everything (as in AutoGPT), Artemis_City runs multiple specialized agents and coordinates them, which avoids the single-agent cognitive overload. For example, where AutoGPT might have one context that grows unwieldy, Artemis_City would distribute work among agents with focused contexts and use the memory bus to share information as needed. This inherently scales better – tasks can be parallelized and specialization leads to efficiency. Moreover, Artemis_City’s persistent memory means it doesn’t lose track of long-term goals or past knowledge after a run ends; it accumulates knowledge across sessions, whereas AutoGPT typically had to be primed from scratch each time. Another contrast is in tool integration and environment. AutoGPT has a set of hardcoded plugins or tools and lacks a concept of an evolving agent community. Artemis_City offers an extensible registry – new tools or agents can be added on the fly. It also has built-in debugging and monitoring (through governance agents and logs), addressing the opaqueness of AutoGPT when it fails. In essence, Artemis_City transforms the one-loop automation into a robust multi-agent workflow with oversight, memory, and adaptability. One can think of AutoGPT/BabyAGI as single-user programs, whereas Artemis_City is like an operating system that can run many programs (agents) safely and concurrently. This is why in the SmythOS comparison (SmythOS being another platform), many enterprise features were absent in AutoGPT/BabyAGI but present in an OS-like approach[43][44] – features such as user interaction, scheduling, logging, alignment control. Artemis_City falls in the latter category of providing those features out-of-the-box. Concretely, an enterprise trying to use AutoGPT would find it hard to manage or trust, whereas Artemis_City offers explainability and transparency (via its graph memory and logs) and controlled execution (via sandboxing and governance). These differences make Artemis_City suitable as a stable infrastructure to build applications on, rather than just a proof-of-concept agent. AgentVerse and Multi-Agent Collaboration Frameworks AgentVerse is a more recent academic framework aiming to facilitate multi-agent collaboration[45]. It acknowledges that multiple agents can outperform a single agent on complex tasks and explores emergent behaviors in agent groups[46]. In spirit, this is closer to Artemis_City’s philosophy than the single-agent loops. However, there are differences in implementation and scope. AgentVerse, as per the available descriptions, provides a structure where agents communicate (often via natural language) and can dynamically adjust their composition as a group[46]. The emphasis is on simulating social interactions (like negotiation, cooperation strategies, etc.) and it’s more of a research toolkit for understanding multi-agent emergent behaviors. Artemis_City, while also enabling multi-agent interaction, is more focused on the infrastructure aspects (memory sharing, orchestration, system governance). One could say AgentVerse is about how agents behave together, whereas Artemis_City is about how to run agents together effectively and safely. In Artemis_City, agents do collaborate (they have communication channels, they can form plans jointly, etc.), and we certainly expect emergent behaviors (for example, two agents might develop a shorthand way of solving a recurring problem that neither was explicitly programmed with). But Artemis_City’s design heavily features the OS-like control which ensures those behaviors remain beneficial. If AgentVerse is exploring what spontaneous strategies agents come up with, Artemis_City is ensuring those strategies are harnessed for good results via our governance and memory coherence. Comparatively, let’s consider a scenario: A multi-agent system tasked with writing a research report. AgentVerse would allow agents (maybe a Writer, a Fact-Checker, an Editor) to talk freely and possibly develop a workflow (maybe they start debating sections, etc.). Artemis_City would also have such agents, but the kernel might enforce a structure: e.g., the Fact-Checker agent automatically checks every claim the Writer agent writes, because our kernel can insert that as a rule. If the Writer and Editor disagree, Artemis_City’s conflict resolution (via either a dedicated arbiter agent or a kernel rule) will kick in to resolve it systematically. This means Artemis_City might be less laissez-faire than AgentVerse, but more predictable for real-world tasks. We favor a balance between emergence and control. Another emerging platform is what Microsoft and others call Orchestration frameworks[16], which aim to coordinate specialized agents at scale in enterprises. Artemis_City aligns well with that concept but goes further in integrating a learning memory and cognitive principles. Many orchestration frameworks today (like some mentioned in Azure’s patterns, IBM’s and others) focus on workflow management and may not include a memory or learning mechanism. Artemis_City’s uniqueness is in fusing orchestration with a rich long-term memory and adaptive learning (Hebbian updates). It’s not just routing tasks; it’s also learning from how those tasks are routed and solved. In summary, compared to multi-agent research frameworks, Artemis_City is more opinionated and vertically integrated: it has clear modules for memory, learning, etc., aiming at a turnkey system that can be used out-of-the-box. Research frameworks might be more open-ended for experimentation but require the user to set up memory or figure out safety on their own. Artemis_City tries to deliver a cohesive, production-ready architecture that embodies best practices drawn from those research insights. It is the difference between a research toolkit and a polished platform intended to form the foundation of real applications. Other Notable Systems and Concepts It’s worth mentioning and comparing Artemis_City to a few other agentic system ideas that have been floating around: - LangChain Agents: LangChain provides building blocks to make LLM agents, including memory modules and tool use. One could assemble something akin to AutoGPT with LangChain. However, LangChain is more of a library, whereas Artemis_City is a full architecture. LangChain agents typically still run in a single loop/thread context, and while they have short-term memory (conversation buffer) and can connect to a vector database (for long-term memory), they lack the orchestrated multi-agent kernel and the dynamic learning aspect. Artemis_City could actually utilize LangChain under the hood for certain agent implementations, but the architecture around it is what LangChain doesn’t provide. - OpenAI Function Calling / Toolformer approach: These allow LLMs to call tools by formatting outputs in certain ways. Useful for single-turn tasks, but not a holistic agent framework. Artemis_City agents might use such techniques internally (an agent could be an LLM that knows how to call tools), but again, Artemis_City organizes many such agents and adds persistence and adaptation. - Anthropic’s Constitutional AI Agents or Self-Reflective Agents: Research into agents that self-evaluate or that are guided by a “constitution” of principles (which can be seen in Claude’s approach) shares goals with our governance approach. Artemis_City’s governance agents and blocklists could be seen as an implementation of a “constitutional AI” layer – the rules are the constitution, and the governance agents ensure they’re upheld. The difference is that in Artemis_City this is part of the architecture rather than inside each model (Anthropic bakes some into the model training; we enforce at system run-time, which is more flexible for upgrades). - Memory-Augmented LLMs (ReAct, etc.): Approaches like ReAct (Reason+Act) and others where the LLM generates thought and tool usage steps have influenced these agent systems. Artemis_City can use such prompting techniques within its agents, but we elevate the concept by giving a structured memory (graph) rather than a plain history, and by coordinating multiple reasoners. To sum up, Artemis_City’s comparative edge lies in integration: memory, learning, orchestration, safety – all in one architecture. It’s not just a demonstration of autonomy (as AutoGPT was), nor just a platform to test multi-agent behavior (as AgentVerse is), but a proposal for a unified infrastructure that could underpin real AGI-level applications. If we imagine deploying an AI to manage an entire company’s data and tasks, Artemis_City is the kind of system you’d want: where numerous agents can handle specialized jobs, talk to each other through a common memory, learn from each success or failure, and all the while be supervised and guided by built-in safety nets. This sets the stage for discussing how we envision Artemis_City’s evolution – what’s next on the roadmap to further distance it from current systems and bring it closer to the ideal of a true agentic operating system. Future Development Roadmap Artemis_City is a living project, and its current architecture is the foundation upon which further enhancements will be built. In this section, we outline several key areas of development that we anticipate will drive Artemis_City’s capabilities even further. These include reinforcement-based routing mechanisms, inhibitory control and memory decay, and the creation of plastic workflows that can evolve over time. Each of these roadmap items is inspired by both biological cognition and practical needs observed in current AI limitations. We describe the vision for each and how it would integrate with the existing system. Reinforcement-Based Routing In the present Artemis_City, the kernel routes tasks to agents based on predefined rules or simple heuristics (like agent capabilities and load). In the future, we aim to make this routing learning-based and optimal through reinforcement learning (RL) techniques. The idea is to have a meta-controller that can observe outcomes of task assignments and learn a policy for which agent (or agent sequence) to dispatch a given task to, maximizing success or efficiency. This is analogous to the Mixture-of-Experts paradigm in neural networks, where a gating network learns to send inputs to the best expert model[12]. In fact, MoE research indicates that using advanced gating (even RL-based gating) can significantly improve performance by dynamically selecting specialists[13]. Artemis_City can be seen as a MoE at the agent level. We plan to implement a gating agent or kernel module that considers features of a task (its type, complexity, context from memory, etc.) and the state of agents (their expertise profiles, recent performance, etc.), and then decides which agent or group of agents should handle it. This decision policy would be trained by reinforcement signals: e.g., if the chosen agent completes task successfully, that’s a positive reward, if it fails or times out, that’s a negative reward. Over time, the router becomes smarter, perhaps even learning non-obvious assignments (maybe an agent designed for X ends up being very good at Y too, so it starts getting Y tasks). Multi-step Routing: More ambitiously, reinforcement could help in not just picking a single agent, but orchestrating multi-agent plans. For instance, the kernel could learn that for problem type Z, the best approach (highest reward) is to first use agent A to gather data, then agent B to analyze, then agent C to review – as a sequence. It could then orchestrate this pattern when a similar problem arises. This essentially is learning workflows. In current implementation we might hand-craft some workflows, but RL can discover optimal ones that humans might not think of, especially as the number of agents and possible combinations grows large. One challenge is that the state space (possible task contexts) is huge, making direct RL difficult. We might employ techniques like context clustering (so similar tasks share experience) or simulation episodes to train the router in a safe environment. There’s some parallel here with how large language models with self-reflection can learn to choose tools better over time, or how meta-learning is used in decision making. We’ll likely start by applying RL to narrower routing decisions (like a classifier for task type to agent mapping) before a full policy, but the end goal is a self-optimizing orchestration where the system essentially learns the best way to utilize its own resources. Inhibition and Decay Mechanisms Borrowing further from neuroscience, we plan to implement inhibitory control in Artemis_City’s cognitive processes. In the human brain, inhibition is crucial for filtering out distracting impulses and focusing on task-relevant information[14]. For Artemis_City, inhibitory control might manifest as a system ability to suppress certain agents or memory nodes under specific conditions. For example, if an agent has repeatedly given wrong answers on a topic, the system could inhibit that agent whenever questions of that topic arise (steering queries to other agents). Or, within a complex reasoning chain, if a line of thought looks promising, the system can inhibit alternative lines to reduce interference, akin to focusing attention. One concrete feature under development is an “Attention Filter”: when multiple agents produce candidate solutions or multiple memory retrievals surface, an inhibitory module can prune away the less relevant ones (like how our brain can ignore irrelevant stimuli). This could be rule-based initially (e.g., drop any memory chunks that have low semantic relevance score to query) and later tuned by learning or user feedback. Another aspect is memory decay. While our Hebbian engine already includes weight decay for unused connections, we might need more deliberate forgetting in some cases. If the memory graph grows indefinitely, it could accumulate outdated or erroneous info that wasn’t frequently used but still sits around. A decay process would periodically review older information and, if deemed low-value, archive it or remove it. This could be time-based (e.g., gradually decrease the “activation potential” of nodes not accessed in N days) or performance-based (if a piece of info consistently yields confusion or has been superseded, let it fade). Decay ensures the system’s knowledge remains current and that the active working set of knowledge is manageable in size. It also mimics human memory – we don’t remember every detail of every day verbatim; we keep what’s salient and let the rest go, which ironically aids creativity and adaptability. Technically, implementing decay might involve a background process that reduces weights on all edges by a small factor periodically (like exponential decay), with reinforcement events counteracting it. So knowledge needs to be “refreshed” by use or it will eventually be forgotten. If something important is at risk of being forgotten due to under-use, perhaps a human or a planning agent should intervene to refresh it (like studying to not forget). This adds a dynamic, time-based dimension to the knowledge management. Inhibitory gating can also prevent runaway processes. For instance, if an agent starts to go into a loop (like generating a flurry of unnecessary tasks), the system can inhibit further task creation from that agent temporarily – effectively breaking the loop. This is akin to a neuron refractory period or a negative feedback loop. In summary, adding inhibition and decay will give Artemis_City a more balanced cognitive control: excitation (Hebbian strengthening) paired with inhibition (suppressing noise) and forgetting (clearing out old clutter). Together these ensure the system stays focused and doesn’t drown in its own expanding mind. Plastic Workflows and Self-Evolution Perhaps the most ambitious item on the roadmap is enabling plastic workflows – the system’s ability to reconfigure its own processes in response to experience. This moves beyond just learning which agent to pick (routing) and into the system modifying or creating entire new sequences or structures of tasks autonomously. It’s essentially Artemis_City engaging in self-programming at the workflow level. In practical terms, a plastic workflow means if Artemis_City encounters a new class of problem that its current agents and flows aren’t well suited for, it could reshape itself to handle it. For example, suppose Artemis_City is deployed to manage IT tickets and then people start using it for project management. It might realize the steps it’s following are suboptimal (maybe it’s doing a lot of repetitive subtasks manually). The system could then spawn a new agent to automate that repetitive part and insert it into the workflow, effectively altering the pipeline to be more efficient. In essence, the system learns a new procedure. Some of this can be seen as an extension of reinforcement-based routing: after enough tasks, patterns are discovered, and the system “productizes” them into a formal workflow. This can be facilitated by a meta-reasoning agent whose job is to observe the system’s operations and suggest improvements (like an AI DevOps inside the AI). We might incorporate a planning algorithm that treats the current architecture as something that can be acted on – thereby planning improvements. Another aspect is agent plasticity: currently, each agent has a fixed role (set by design or training). In the future, agents could themselves be more fluid – maybe a generalist agent that, through continuous learning, specializes into a new niche, effectively becoming a different kind of agent. Artemis_City might then recognize that and update the registry metadata for that agent’s capabilities. Alternatively, it might clone an agent and fine-tune it on a subset of tasks, creating a new specialist. This is analogous to how in an organism, cells can differentiate or new cells (with slightly mutated function) can emerge. We also consider workflow inhibition/excitation akin to neural circuit plasticity. If a certain workflow yields positive outcomes, the system will reinforce that pathway (like a habit forming). If one yields negative outcomes, the system will try alternate pathways next time (like avoiding a bad habit). Over many iterations, the “fittest” workflows survive. This is almost an evolutionary algorithm happening implicitly on the graph of tasks and agents. One tool to support plastic workflows is to use something like a genetic programming or program synthesis approach on the process definitions. Artemis_City could internally represent a workflow as a graph or script (some DSL for orchestration) and then mutate or optimize it, guided by performance metrics. The culmination of plastic workflows would be when Artemis_City can adapt to entirely new domains with minimal human intervention, by reorganizing its internal structures. For example, drop Artemis_City into a scientific research setting after it’s been used in business setting – it might initially flail, but then it identifies that it needs a new “Literature Review Agent” or a new way to store experiment data, and it sets those up itself (perhaps with an app store of agent templates it can pull from, or auto-training a new agent from text corpora). This level of adaptivity would be a significant step toward general intelligence – the system not just learning within a fixed architecture, but learning how to change its architecture to meet novel challenges. In simpler near-term roadmap items: we plan to allow workflow editing via the Visual Cortex (drag-and-drop to change an orchestration, which the system can then adopt and even tweak further). Also possibly introducing stochasticity in execution to encourage exploration (occasionally try a different agent for a task to see if it yields a better result, akin to exploration in RL – which then could lead to discovering better workflows). Each of these future developments will be carefully prototyped and tested. They will be built on top of the solid base that is Artemis_City’s current architecture. If the core is the operating system, these future additions are like adding new modules or subsystems to that OS to make it smarter and more self-sufficient. We believe these directions – reinforcement routing, inhibition/decay, and self-evolving workflows – are critical for pushing the boundaries of what agentic systems can do, moving ever closer to resilient, autonomous cognitive architectures that can genuinely handle open-world complexity. Conclusion In this whitebook, we have introduced Artemis_City as a pioneering agentic operating system architecture that merges insights from cognitive science, systems engineering, and cutting-edge AI research. We began with a vision: moving from single-loop autonomous agents to a full-fledged infrastructure for intelligence, where multiple specialized agents coexist, collaborate, and are orchestrated under a unifying framework. Throughout the discussion, key themes have been the emphasis on embodiment (situating agents in an environment and context), structured memory and learning (the Obsidian-based knowledge graph with Hebbian plasticity), and governance with transparency (safety and interpretability built-in, not bolted on). Artemis_City stakes out a clear position in the AI landscape – it is not an incremental tweak on agent wrappers or a mere toolkit, but rather the foundation of a new class of AI systems. By analogy, if early agent experiments were like handcrafted radios, Artemis_City is an integrated computer: a platform upon which countless applications (use cases) can be run, because it provides general services (memory management, task scheduling, i/o via agents, safety, etc.) applicable to many domains. This positions Artemis_City as an attractive solution for AGI researchers and AI architects aiming to build persistent, evolving AI minds that can operate continuously and adaptively. The architecture we detailed is both rigorous and visionary – rigorous in that each component (kernel, registry, memory, etc.) is well-defined and justified with references to known techniques or theories, and visionary in painting a trajectory for how the system can grow (with reinforcement learning, self-modifying workflows, etc.). We drew parallels to biological cognition – not out of novelty, but because the organism-like behavior (self-organization, adaptation, development) is what we ultimately seek in artificial general intelligence. Artemis_City doesn’t claim to have solved AGI, but it offers a scaffold where AGI-like properties can emerge: an agent society that learns and self-regulates. One of the strengths of Artemis_City is extensibility. As new AI models or tools become available, they can be incorporated as new agents or improvements to memory, without overhauling the whole system. This is analogous to how a well-designed OS can run on new hardware or support new peripherals through drivers – Artemis_City can integrate a new vision module or a more powerful language model as components. The core remains the orchestrator and memory that bind everything together. We see this as crucial for staying at the forefront of AI: the architecture should endure even as the state-of-the-art in components advances. From a research perspective, Artemis_City provides a platform to explore questions about emergence and coordination: How do specialized intelligences form higher-level intelligence? What kinds of social behaviors (cooperation, competition) emerge among agents and how to steer them? How does long-term memory shape the problem-solving capability? These questions can be investigated within Artemis_City, making it not just a product but a research instrument. For engineers and practitioners, Artemis_City is a step toward practically deployable AI systems that are robust and maintainable. The inclusion of audit trails, the human-readable knowledge base, and modularity addresses real-world concerns of trust and debugging that many AI deployments face. Instead of a monolithic black-box model, we get a system where one can pinpoint which agent or knowledge caused an outcome, inspect it, fix it, and have the system learn from that fix. In conclusion, we assert that Artemis_City heralds the founding of a new class of agentic intelligence infrastructure – one where AI is not a singular model but an ecosystem of interacting processes, grounded in memory and moderated by meta-cognitive oversight. It offers a path forward for those who believe that achieving higher intelligence will require going beyond scaling single models to architecting systems that reflect the complexity and adaptability of natural cognitive systems. With Artemis_City, we set forth a blueprint that is at once a consolidation of the best practices so far and a launchpad for innovations to come. We invite the community – researchers, developers, visionaries – to engage with Artemis_City. Treat this whitebook as both a report of progress and a call to collaboration. The journey to AGI is a grand challenge, and while Artemis_City may be one city on that journey, it is built to be expanded, improved, and lived in by a growing population of intelligent agents and their creators. Together, let us continue to push the boundaries of what artificial agents can achieve, guided by both scientific rigor and our imagination of what could be in the realm of machine intelligence.

[1] [20] Recent Trends in Morphological Computation | Frontiers Research Topic https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/10055/recent-trends-in-morphological-computation/magazine [2] [38] neural network - Hebbian Learning explanation - Stack Overflow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41275973/hebbian-learning-explanation [3] [4] [19] [23] [24] Embodied cognitive morphogenesis as a route to intelligent systems - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37065267/ [5] [32] [33] [34] [35] Obsidian Memory MCP server for AI agents https://playbooks.com/mcp/yunaga224-obsidian-memory [6] AI & Vectors | Supabase Docs https://supabase.com/docs/guides/ai [7] [21] Validation-Gated Hebbian Learning for Adaptive Agent Memory | OpenReview https://openreview.net/forum?id=EN9VRTnZbK [8] [9] [43] [44] AutoGPT vs BabyAGI: An In-depth Comparison https://smythos.com/developers/agent-comparisons/autogpt-vs-babyagi/ [10] [11] [15] [16] [27] [28] Multi Agent Orchestration: The new Operating System powering Enterprise AI https://www.kore.ai/blog/what-is-multi-agent-orchestration [12] [13] How Mixture of Experts 2.0 Eliminates AI Infrastructure Bottlenecks | Galileo https://galileo.ai/blog/mixture-of-experts-architecture [14] Inhibitory Control - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/inhibitory-control [17] [18] Cognition as Embodied Morphological Computation | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-96448-5_2 [22] [36] [37] [39] [40] The Living Memory Graph: How Multi-Dimensional Self-Reorganization Enables Dynamic Knowledge Evolution in Artificial Intelligence | by Brian Curry | Nov, 2025 | Medium https://medium.com/@brian-curry-research/the-living-memory-graph-how-multi-dimensional-self-reorganization-enables-dynamic-knowledge-893358215d11 [25] [26] AI Agent Orchestration Patterns - Azure Architecture Center | Microsoft Learn https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/ai-ml/guide/ai-agent-design-patterns [29] [30] [31] [41] [42] AI Agent Governance: Big Challenges, Big Opportunities | IBM https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/ai-agent-governance [45] [46] [2308.10848] AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10848