A quiet summer evening in 1956, a gathering of academics on the Dartmouth College campus in New Hampshire. The purpose: to discuss how machines could think like humans. It was here that John McCarthy coined the term "Artificial Intelligence" – but not artificial general intelligence (AGI). That concept didn't come into focus for years.
In 1997, Mark Gubrud was consumed by a different obsession. Nanotechnology and its potential risks were his focus. As a grad student at the University of Maryland, he listened to a sump pump thundering in the basement while researching everything he could on nanotech. His concern? How this cutting-edge science could be used as a deadly weapon.
Gubrud's paper, "Nanotechnology and International Security," argued that breakthrough technologies would redefine international conflicts, making them potentially more catastrophic than nuclear war. He called for nations to give up their warrior tradition. In it, he defined advanced artificial general intelligence – the kind of AI that could rival or surpass human cognition in complexity and speed.
Fast forward to the early 2000s. A time when AI Winter still chilled the field. Yet, some researchers sensed a thaw. Ray Kurzweil predicted in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" that AI would match human cognition by around 2030 – sparking discussions about "strong AI" or even "real AI." However, these terms didn't stick.
It was Ben Goertzel who coined the term "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). The idea stuck, with a journal and conference by that name. But Gubrud had actually used the phrase in 1997 – before anyone else did. He claimed to have been part of an online forum where he mentioned AGI.
Despite never meeting Legg or Wang, who were among those popularizing the term, Gubrud understands his contribution. His focus was on warning about the dangers of AI and autonomous killer robots. Today, Gubrud spends his time caring for his mother – a far cry from the peripatetic career path he once had.
Gubrud's legacy is one of giving a name to AGI. His definition still holds. And his warnings about its dangers remain relevant. A quiet academic discussion in 1956 may have sparked a movement, but it was Gubrud who gave it a name – and with that, a sense of urgency.
In 1997, Mark Gubrud was consumed by a different obsession. Nanotechnology and its potential risks were his focus. As a grad student at the University of Maryland, he listened to a sump pump thundering in the basement while researching everything he could on nanotech. His concern? How this cutting-edge science could be used as a deadly weapon.
Gubrud's paper, "Nanotechnology and International Security," argued that breakthrough technologies would redefine international conflicts, making them potentially more catastrophic than nuclear war. He called for nations to give up their warrior tradition. In it, he defined advanced artificial general intelligence – the kind of AI that could rival or surpass human cognition in complexity and speed.
Fast forward to the early 2000s. A time when AI Winter still chilled the field. Yet, some researchers sensed a thaw. Ray Kurzweil predicted in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines" that AI would match human cognition by around 2030 – sparking discussions about "strong AI" or even "real AI." However, these terms didn't stick.
It was Ben Goertzel who coined the term "Artificial General Intelligence" (AGI). The idea stuck, with a journal and conference by that name. But Gubrud had actually used the phrase in 1997 – before anyone else did. He claimed to have been part of an online forum where he mentioned AGI.
Despite never meeting Legg or Wang, who were among those popularizing the term, Gubrud understands his contribution. His focus was on warning about the dangers of AI and autonomous killer robots. Today, Gubrud spends his time caring for his mother – a far cry from the peripatetic career path he once had.
Gubrud's legacy is one of giving a name to AGI. His definition still holds. And his warnings about its dangers remain relevant. A quiet academic discussion in 1956 may have sparked a movement, but it was Gubrud who gave it a name – and with that, a sense of urgency.
for sounding the alarm about the dangers of AI & autonomous killer robots!!! ur legacy lives on 
and ur warnings are still super relevant today!! u might not be as famous as some other researchers, but ur contribution to the AGI movement is HUGE 
I'm so over the lack of transparency on AI research updates. It's like they're all hiding something from us 
. This whole "AI Winter" thing is just a fancy way to say they didn't have enough funding or interest. Meanwhile, Mark Gubrud was out here warning about AGI in 1997 and nobody gave it the recognition it deserved 
.
. Ben Goertzel coins the term "Artificial General Intelligence" but Gubrud was using that exact phrase in an online forum years earlier? No acknowledgment, no recognition... it's just so unprofessional 
.
. It's like he knew something we didn't know back then 
.
. I mean, think about it - we're at this point where people are like "oh yeah, artificial intelligence" and it's just...what? It's not even close to being the sci-fi stuff you'd see in old movies 
. And Gubrud, man, he was ahead of his time. I mean, the dude predicted some crazy stuff back in 1997 - like how AGI would be a game-changer for international security. It's wild that nobody else picked up on it until later 
.
. I mean, Gubrud spent his career warning about the dangers of autonomous killer robots and stuff, but people didn't listen 
Like, John McCarthy coined AI back in '56, but not AGI, okay? That's still a thing. And then there's Mark Gubrud from 1997 who basically predicted the whole AGI problem we're dealing with today. I mean, dude was worried about nanotechnology being used as a deadly weapon - that's some serious foresight right there. 
He even defined AGI before anyone else did! Ben Goertzel might have popularized it, but Gubrud was the OG. It's pretty wild how one person's warning can still be relevant 30+ years later. That's what I call a lasting legacy 
.
and someone actually listened? Not so much 
Gubrud's predictions were spot on but it's weird that he's not getting the recognition he deserves. He basically coined the term AGI in 1997 
way before anyone else. Meanwhile, Kurzweil is out here predicting AI will be like humans by 2030 
Like, what even is the difference between human cognition and some fancy machine? Not impressed 
Anyway, it's all good... both Goertzel and Gubrud are right in their own ways, I suppose?