Large language models (LLMs) are evaluated as though perfect reliability is achievable for any task given sufficient scale. We show this assumption is information-theoretically unjustified. Every generative task has a reliability ceiling
that no model can exceed, determined by how much output uncertainty is resolvable from observable context. The gap decomposes into a resolvable component closable with additional context and a subjective component inherent to task ambiguity. Autoregressive generation further degrades this ceiling at a rate governed by the task’s dependency kernel, which quantifies inter-token correlations in the output. From these two primitives, we derive a first-principles scaling law where LLM performance is bottlenecked by the scarcer resource: training data or model capacity. This law recovers the Chinchilla scaling law as a special case and provides a structural account of when scaling improves reliability. Beyond scaling, our framework unifies diverse practical phenomena, such as the
benefits of retrieval-augmentation and the spectral mechanics of catastrophic forgetting. Our work formalizes the resource-complexity tradeoffs that govern model performance across domains, offering a unified theory of performance limits in generative language models.