{"id":"arxiv:2610.27373","kind":"preprint","title":"Fundamental Impossibility Results in AI Safety: Trading Off between Desiderata","authors":["Ida Mattsson","Ratip Emin Berker","Emanuel Tewolde","Ioannis Anagnostides","Kiriaki Fragkia","Xinyu Liu","Alexander Heckett","Jiayuan Liu","Eden Hartman","Vojtěch Kovařík","Sven Neth","Maria-Florina Balcan","Tuomas Sandholm","Vincent Conitzer"],"author_count":14,"year":2026,"published":"2026-10-19","venue":null,"cited_by":null,"doi":null,"arxiv_id":"2610.27373","nct_id":null,"source_url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27373","archive_url":"https://space-kitty.com/papers/arxiv:2610.27373","updated":"2026-10-19","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"openalex_id":null,"pdf_url":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.27373","abstract":"Is there a fundamental tradeoff between desiderata for safe AI systems, such as harmlessness and helpfulness? We answer by formalizing the interaction between AI systems and users as a game with three players: a defender and an attacker that are computationally or informationally bounded, and an AI that provides public advice and is less constrained. Our main result shows that there is a fundamental tradeoff in providing advice that helps the defender while advice remains public. We also consider whether the information that the AI shares can be manipulated to benefit only the defender and conclude with a discussion of how we can use these results in designing safer AI systems.","abstract_license":"CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)","license":null,"is_open_access":false,"retracted":false,"peer_reviewed":false,"categories":["cs.GT","cs.AI"],"details":null,"provenance":"arxiv","attribution":"Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.","topics":[],"cited_in_dossiers":[]}