Survey highlights structural conditions for AI capabilities and agency, suggesting vital implications for safety and design.
This paper is Paper C4 of the Reflexive Reality capstone series. It surveys the program for researchers in AI, AGI, multi-agent systems, AI safety, cognitive science, and agent foundations. Every load-bearing claim marked with a bracketed citation corresponds to a machine-checked theorem in Lean 4 with zero custom axioms and zero sorry. To verify: lake update && lake exe cache get && lake build after cloning ://github.com/novaspivack/reflexive-reality-leanreflexive-reality-lean. The repository's declared default Lake target is ReflexiveReality, which imports AIAgents.lean and elaborates the AIAgents namespace aliases. The paper does not argue that AI systems cannot be capable, powerful, or aligned. It proves which structural conditions any system—biological or digital—must satisfy to qualify for certain designations (genuine agent, sentient, interpretable, safely certifiable), and which claimed properties are formally impossible regardless of scale or architecture. Six headline results for this audience: (1) the blind spot in any parametric self-model is structural and cannot be eliminated by scaling; (2) a formal definition of genuine autonomous agency (SIAM) with separation theorems proving feedforward and stateless systems do not qualify; (3) no institution can be total, sound, and complete as an AI verifier under diagonal constraints; (4) the simulation hypothesis is closed on three independent grounds; (5) the Reflexive Development Law formally distinguishes genuine AI progress from scaling, iteration, and relabeling; and (6) machine sentience has a formal structural characterization that is substrate-independent. Trust boundary. This is an expository portal. Bracket-tagged claims are listed in . AI-facing gloss and motivation are not additional theorem statements unless tagged as theorem-extracted. Claim levels follow the opening Claim-typing discipline keybox.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nova Spivack (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: