mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Impossibility Results in AI: A Survey

arXiv 2109.00484 ↗First posted 1 Sep 2021cs.AI cs.CYcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

An impossibility theorem demonstrates that a particular problem or set of problems cannot be solved as described in the claim. Such theorems put limits on what is possible to do concerning artificial intelligence, especially the super-intelligent one. As such, these results serve as guidelines, reminders, and warnings to AI safety, AI policy, and governance researchers. These might enable solutions to some long-standing questions in the form of formalizing theories in the framework of constraint satisfaction without committing to one option. We strongly believe this to be the most prudent approach to long-term AI safety initiatives. In this paper, we have categorized impossibility theorems applicable to AI into five mechanism-based categories: deduction, indistinguishability, induction, tradeoffs, and intractability. We found that certain theorems are too specific or have implicit assumptions that limit application. Also, we added new results (theorems) such as the unfairness of explainability, the first explainability-related result in the induction category. The remaining results deal with misalignment between the clones and put a limit to the self-awareness of agents. We concluded that deductive impossibilities deny 100%-guarantees for security. In the end, we give some ideas that hold potential in explainability, controllability, value alignment, ethics, and group decision-making. They can be deepened by further investigation.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 128 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2021.

Builds on

26 of 128 references.

References · 26

  1. 2018Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representationscited by 929
  2. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 582
  3. 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
  4. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
  5. 2016Why does deep and cheap learning work so well?cited by 100
  6. 2016The Off-Switch Gamecited by 97
  7. 2021Consequences of Misaligned AIcited by 79
  8. 2017Reinforcement Learning with a Corrupted Reward Channelcited by 68
  9. 2017Occam's razor is insufficient to infer the preferences of irrational agentscited by 44
  10. 2018AGI Safety Literature Reviewcited by 28
  11. 2020Reformulation of the No-Free-Lunch Theorem for Entangled Data Setscited by 28
  12. 2018Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function)cited by 22
14 more
  1. 2020Reinforcement Learning Under Moral Uncertaintycited by 16
  2. 2016Superintelligence cannot be contained: Lessons from Computability Theorycited by 13
  3. 2020The Impossibility Theorem of Machine Fairness -- A Causal Perspectivecited by 13
  4. 2020The Hypervolume Indicator: Problems and Algorithmscited by 11
  5. 2017Incorrigibility in the CIRL Frameworkcited by 9
  6. 2020AI safety: state of the field through quantitative lenscited by 9
  7. 2020What is important about the No Free Lunch theorems?cited by 9
  8. 2017A Game-Theoretic Analysis of the Off-Switch Gamecited by 8
  9. 2017Dynamic Safe Interruptibility for Decentralized Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 4
  10. 2020A general theory of identificationcited by 4
  11. 2021Undecidability of Underfitting in Learning Algorithmscited by 4
  12. 2014Automated Search for Impossibility Theorems in Social Choice Theory: Ranking Sets of Objectscited by 3
  13. 2019Personal Universes: A Solution to the Multi-Agent Value Alignment Problemcited by 3
  14. 2017Constraints on physical reality arising from a formalization of knowledgecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area: