aiqbench analysis
This paper challenges the foundational assumption in AI safety literature regarding the inevitability of catastrophic shutdown problems, arguing that existing risk arguments rely on unproven premises and excessive performance penalties. By identifying these specific assumptions, the research offers a clearer path toward technical alignment strategies without unnecessarily sacrificing model capabilities. It serves as critical guidance for researchers aiming to balance existential risk mitigation with practical AI deployment.
Revisiting the shutdown problem
arXiv:2606.08296v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A key premise in leading arguments for existential risk from artificial intelligence is that malfunctioning artificial agents could not be easily shut down. This motivates the catastrophic shutdown problem of ensuring that agents can be shut down before causing an existential catastrophe. A range of arguments and theorems are offered to suggest that solving the catastrophic shutdown problem is difficult, bolstering arguments for existential risk and motivating a search for solutions to the catastrophic shutdown problem. This paper argues for two conclusions. First, existing arguments require substantial additional assumptions and evidence to play the desired role in motivating existential risk concerns. Second, concern for the catastrophic shutdown problem has led to technical solutions that impose a high safety tax on model performance. These results redirect research towards the identified assumptions and provide guidance for technical alignment strategies.
Abstract:A key premise in leading arguments for existential risk from artificial intelligence is that malfunctioning artificial agents could not be easily shut down. This motivates the catastrophic shutdown problem of ensuring that agents can be shut down before causing an existential catastrophe. A range of arguments and theorems are offered to suggest that solving the catastrophic shutdown problem is difficult, bolstering arguments for existential risk and motivating a search for solutions to the catastrophic shutdown problem. This paper argues for two conclusions. First, existing arguments require substantial additional assumptions and evidence to play the desired role in motivating existential risk concerns. Second, concern for the catastrophic shutdown problem has led to technical solutions that impose a high safety tax on model performance. These results redirect research towards the identified assumptions and provide guidance for technical alignment strategies.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2606.08296 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.08296v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.08296 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 232 words
Related coverage
Revisiting the shutdown problem
arXiv · Jun 9, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

Three perspectives on corrigibility - shards, simulators, singular learning
LessWrong · Oct 16, 2026