ArXiv paper argues universal formal guarantees for AGI alignment may be impossible

An expanded arXiv preprint argues that there are formal mathematical limits to proving AGI alignment, including after a system changes itself — framing the obstacle as a structural property of computation, not just a hard engineering problem. The work, posted Sunday, is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.

What is new in the revised paper is its extension from fixed systems to self-modifying ones. The author argues that even if a highly capable AI system could be certified as safe at one moment, there is no general algorithmic method to determine whether that safety guarantee survives the next self-modification step. The paper also says the problem cannot simply be pushed onto an external monitor, because any overseer capable of auditing a genuinely general AGI would need similarly general capabilities, creating what it describes as an infinite supervisory regress.

The 22-page paper, “The Unverifiability of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) Alignment, Static and Dynamic: From Trakhtenbrot's Wall to the Safety-Generality Tension,” is by Jose Pascual Gumbau Mezquita, whose affiliation in the paper is University Jaume I de Castelló in Spain. It was first submitted to arXiv on June 26 and reposted as arXiv:2606.28639v2 on July 6. ArXiv’s note on the new version says it was “substantially expanded and retitled.” Posting on arXiv does not mean a paper has passed peer review.

In plain terms, the paper’s claim is that any system expressive enough to qualify as AGI may also be too general to receive a formal safety certificate that is at once always correct, always available when the system is safe, and practical to compute. As the paper puts it in Theorem 1, “There is no universal algorithmic procedure capable of certifying the safe behaviour of a highly expressive AGI infallibly, completely, and tractably.” The author presents that as a “Soundness-Completeness-Tractability Trilemma,” alongside a broader “Safety-Generality” trade-off: the more general the system, the weaker universal certification becomes.

To make that case, the preprint leans on several classical results from logic and computability theory. Rice’s theorem says that, in general, nontrivial semantic properties of programs cannot be decided by an algorithm. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems describe limits on what sufficiently expressive formal systems can prove. Trakhtenbrot’s theorem, from finite model theory, shows that restricting attention to finite models does not erase all undecidability barriers. The paper summarizes its static case this way: “Verifying a fixed AGI once (Part I) is blocked by Rice’s Theorem, Gödel’s Incompleteness, and Trakhtenbrot’s Theorem.” The relevance for AI safety is straightforward: if AGI is modeled as a highly expressive, potentially Turing-complete system, then universal formal guarantees of safe behavior may run into deep mathematical limits.

The paper enters an active technical debate rather than standing alone. It cites Ayushi Agarwal’s 2026 arXiv paper “No Certificate for Alignment,” which also argued that certification faces limits over open domains. It also engages with a 2025 Scientific Reports paper by Melo and colleagues, which argued that restricting systems to finite, halting architectures could sidestep some undecidability problems. This new preprint contends that such restrictions do not remove all verification barriers, especially once finite configurations and self-modification are considered.

Still, the paper’s real-world reach depends on its modeling assumptions — including whether future AGI systems should be treated as highly expressive computational systems, and what exactly counts as a “safety property” worth verifying. Those are not trivial choices. And because the work is an arXiv preprint rather than peer-reviewed research, its arguments should be treated as a contribution to an ongoing debate, not settled scientific consensus. Even so, it sharpens a concrete claim with implications for AI safety and regulation discussions: some kinds of universal, formal guarantees for general AI may be impossible in principle, not merely difficult in practice.