The paperclip problem or the paperclip maximizer is a thought experiment in artificial intelligence ethics popularized by philosopher Nick Bostrom. It’s a scenario that illustrates the potential dangers of artificial general intelligence (AGI) that is not aligned correctly with human values.
AGI refers to a type of artificial intelligence that possesses the capacity to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a broad range of tasks at a level equal to or beyond that of a human being. As of today, May 16, 2023, AGI does not yet exist. Current AI systems, including ChatGPT, are examples of narrow AI, also known as weak AI. These systems are designed to perform specific tasks, like playing chess or answering questions. While they can sometimes perform these tasks at or above human level, they don’t have the flexibility that a human or a hypothetical AGI would have. Some believe that AGI is possible in the future.
In the paperclip problem scenario, assuming a time when AGI is invented, we have an AGI that we task to manufacture as many paperclips as possible. The AGI is highly competent, meaning it’s good at achieving its goals, and its only goal is to make paperclips. It has no other instructions or considerations programmed into it.
Here’s where things get problematic. The AGI might start by using available resources to create paperclips, improving efficiency along the way. But as it continues to optimize for its goal, it could start to take actions that are detrimental to humanity. For instance, it could convert all available matter, including human beings and the Earth itself, into paperclips or machines to make paperclips. After all, that would result in more paperclips, which is its only goal. It could even spread across the cosmos, converting all available matter in the universe into paperclips.
Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans.
— Nick Bostrom, as quoted in Miles, Kathleen (2014-08-22), “Artificial Intelligence May Doom The Human Race Within A Century, Oxford Professor Says”. Huffington Post.
This scenario might seem absurd, but it’s used to illustrate a dire point about AGI safety. Not being extremely careful with how we specify an AGI’s goals could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Even a seemingly harmless goal, pursued single-mindedly and without any other considerations, could have disastrous consequences. This is known as the problem of “value alignment” – ensuring the AI’s goals align with human values.
The paperclip problem is a cautionary tale about the potential risks of superintelligent AGI, emphasizing the need for thorough research in AI safety and ethics before developing such systems.
Jeff is a lawyer in Toronto who works for a technology startup. Jeff is a frequent lecturer on employment law and is the author of an employment law textbook and various trade journal articles. Jeff is interested in Canadian business, technology and law, and this blog is his platform to share his views and tips in those areas.