Corporations already have legal personhood and act in their own interests. It's going to be much easier to automate and formalise business decision making than to develop a true general intelligence with a full spectrum of human characteristics.
This may sound like science fiction, but as competence increases shareholders - who typically are only passingly interested in moral issues - are likely to demand the increased returns an AI CEO can bring.
But AIs don't, and corporate officers must be persons (natural persons, even -- a corporation can't be a corporate officer.)
That in itself is not so bad, as extremely long-timeframe constraints (say, >50 years) upon such an algorithm could conceivably be consonant with current decision-making behavior that externalizes many input costs (employee overtime, environmental damage, etc.). Running the algorithm to pay out in very short timeframes (a month to a year) due to most CEOs' anticipated short tenure is what seems to cause undesirable optimizations.
A tiger doesn't need to be self aware or have intent to be dangerous.
The paperclip maximizer generally refers to a AGI with a value system that is not aligned with humans. An AGI smart enough to achieve its goals (making paperclips) so efficiently that it becomes a threat to humans through sheer resource consumption.
So it's not a good example of dumb-tiger-AIs occasionally becoming a threat to humans, which still on average are able to outcompete a tiger with ease.
The "system" does not need to have intent or be even closely aware to be dangerous to humans.
And so the article sets up a false premise if the quoted conclusion is to be the base of judging whether it's going to be a threat to us or not.