CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 14, 2026

Sustaining AI safety: Control-theoretic external impossibility, intrinsic necessity, and structural requirements

arXiv AI Archived May 14, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.12963v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems become increasingly capable, safety strategies must be evaluated not only by how much they reduce present risk, but by whether they could sustain safety once external control can no longer reliably constrain system behavior. This paper addresses that problem by using control theory to clarify, at a structural level, whether externally enforced safety-sustaining strategies can succeed and, if not, what any alternative strategy would ha

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 13 May 2026] Sustaining AI safety: Control-theoretic external impossibility, intrinsic necessity, and structural requirements James M. Mazzu As AI systems become increasingly capable, safety strategies must be evaluated not only by how much they reduce present risk, but by whether they could sustain safety once external control can no longer reliably constrain system behavior. This paper addresses that problem by using control theory to clarify, at a structural level, whether externally enforced safety-sustaining strategies can succeed and, if not, what any alternative strategy would have to satisfy in order to be viable. It establishes two main results. First, under explicit premises including a reachability condition, it proves a class-wide external impossibility result: once the system's effects exceed what bounded external control can counteract, no strategy that depends in any degree on continued external enforcement can sustain AI safety. This failure is structural across the entire externally enforced class rather than contingent on any particular strategy. Second, it establishes a conditional class-level necessity result: if at least one candidate safety-sustaining strategy remains after that elimination, then all such remaining strategies must be intrinsic. It then states four structural requirements for viability: safety may not depend on continued external enforcement; the system's terminal objective must be safety-compatible when first formed; that objective must remain stable under self-modification; and safety must continue to be preserved as capability grows. The paper does not propose a complete strategy for sustaining AI safety. Its contribution is to give formal structure to a widely held concern about the limits of external control. It does so by deriving explicit conditional results that identify which safety-sustaining strategies are ruled out and what any remaining strategies must satisfy. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.12963 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.12963v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.12963 Focus to learn more Submission history From: James Mazzu [view email] [v1] Wed, 13 May 2026 03:56:04 UTC (139 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 14, 2026
    Archived
    May 14, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗