The Slinky and the "Intended Purpose" of AI Systems

Imagine you're naval engineer Richard James. It’s 1943 and you’re building springs to stabilise sensitive equipment on U.S. Navy ships. One day, one of the springs you have been building slips off your desk. Instead of crashing to the ground, it walks.

That moment of unexpected motion sparked one of the world’s most iconic toys: the Slinky. The spring was never meant to be a toy. Its intended purpose was to keep military instruments steady during combat, but gravity had other ideas and the rest is toy history.

What does this have to do with the EU’s AI Act?

Just like the Slinky, your AI system might have the capability to do many things. It might even stumble into unintended applications.

Under the EU AI Act the definition is provided in Article 3(12). The provider of an AI system must identify the system’s ‘intended purpose’ which then works like an anchor to ground further legal obligations under the AI Act, such as

• Whether the AI system is high-risk

• What documentation, testing, transparency, and oversight duties follow on from those definitions

• Whether the AI system is being used in accordance with the intended purpose

If Richard James were developing the Slinky today as an AI system, he’d need to pick a lane. Is it a naval stabilizer? Or is it an interactive toy? Each use would carry very different risks, rules, and requirements.

Bottom Line

Under the AI Act, the intended purpose is the whole starting point. From substantial modifications to risk assessments, across the AI value chain providers and deployers must be able to identify, track and understand the intended purpose of the AI systems.

If you’re using AI governance tools, choose ones that are research-driven and can adapt to keep your obligations clear, documented, and compliant.

Want to learn more?