Off-topic for aiqbench
This story was gathered from a source we follow but falls outside AI and quantum coverage, so there is no aiqbench take for it.
Norms Are Broken Laws
An Introductory Example Consider the following unwritten rule: Keep the kitchen clean. Clean after you cook. Consider the following three characters: the unreflective individual, the conscious egoist, and the rational moralist.[1] The unreflective individual cleans the kitchen after cooking, almost automatically, because it is a norm that the society expects people to comply with. The only cost is the physical cost to clean the kitchen. The perceived cost is none, since that's the default thing to do regardless of others. The conscious egoist doesn't clean the kitchen. The conscious egoist examines the dilemma whether to (A) clean the kitchen or (B) don't clean the kitchen. The conscious egoist measures the cost of (A) as the physical cost, and the cost of (B) as none, so the conscious egoist chooses (B). The final perceived cost is none. The rational moralist faces the dilemma (A)/(B) as above. The rational moralist measures the cost of (A) as the physical cost, the cost of (B) as the emotional cost (i.e. I'm unhappy that I'm a bad person acting as a free-rider). If the rational moralist chooses (A), then they bear the physical cost. If the rational moralist chooses (B), then they bear the emotional cost. I'll generalize the kitchen example to "all [unwritten but expected] norms". Let me introduce more examples here: Keep quiet on public transport. In the school cafeteria, return the trays, don't just leave them on the table. Be polite in communications. Respect others. Keep your promises. If you replace the kitchen scenario with other examples, you can see that the cost analysis of three characters above remain the same, except for the fifth example, where non-compliance carries a significant cost.[2] My Claim There is an asymmetry whenever the society expects its members to follow some unwritten norms. My main claim is that: All (unwritten but expected) norms push the burden into the rational moralist, creating a perceived tax (whether physical or emotional cost). This punishes the rational moralist, and therefore such society encourages people to rather be unreflective or egoistic, compared to being rational and moral. The collective judges efficacy competently and distribution blindly[3], hence leaving things as they are, not accepting the decision to convert norms into written laws. My proposal is therefore to minimize [unwritten but expected] norms, i.e., "abolish all norms". This doesn't directly mean actively removing all the norms, but rather, I mean: Revise the norms, turn them into a written rule that is agreed in the social contract, if verifiable, sanctionable, and if the failure of its compliance leads to a negative social outcome. For other norms (such as "saying thank you", "voluntary kindness", etc.), move them towards the etiquette category, and do not expect people to follow such norm, and also discourage people to expect others to follow such norm. Under this revision, the unreflective individual continues to perform whatever has to be done normally, just that the unwritten norm "Keep the kitchen clean. Clean after you cook." is turned into an explicit rule: Members of the kitchen must clean after cooking. Failure to do so will result in a fine of $100. Now the conscious egoist and the rational moralist both face a cost: choosing (A) creates a physical cost, and choosing (B) creates a concrete $100 cost. This new protocol distributes the old "rational moralist tax" into a universal tax: one either cleans the kitchen or pays the fee. I argue that this system is fairer than the original one.[4] Now let us abstract this example away and let me propose a full formal specification below. The Blueprint Let mjx-math { display: inline-block; text-align: left; line-height: 0; text-indent: 0; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 100%; font-size-adjust: none; letter-spacing: normal; border-collapse: collapse; word-wrap: normal; word-spacing: normal; white-space: nowrap; direction: ltr; padding: 1px 0; } mjx-container[jax="CHTML"][display="true"] { display: block; text-align: center; margin: 1em 0; } mjx-container[jax="CHTML"][display="true"][width="full"] { display: flex; } mjx-container[jax="CHTML"][display="true"] mjx-math { padding: 0; } mjx-container[jax="CHTML"][justify="left"] { text-align: left; } mjx-container[jax="CHTML"][justify="right"] { text-align: right; } mjx-mi { display: inline-block; text-align: left; } mjx-c { display: inline-block; } mjx-utext { display: inline-block; padding: .75em 0 .2em 0; } mjx-msub { display: inline-block; text-align: left; } mjx-mo { display: inline-block; text-align: left; } mjx-stretchy-h { display: inline-table; width: 100%; } mjx-stretchy-h > * { display: table-cell; width: 0; } mjx-stretchy-h > * > mjx-c { display: inline-block; transform: scalex(1.0000001); } mjx-stretchy-h > * > mjx-c::before { display: inline-block; width: initial
Read the full article at LessWrongRelated coverage
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026
Broken Symmetry in BF16 Attention: Why FlashAttention Gradients Blow Up Late in Training
arXiv · Sep 30, 2026

It’s about ethics in journalism, with Ben Smith
The Verge · Aug 17, 2026

Arvind Gupta : India Rise as a Digital Power • Stimson Center
stimson.org · Aug 1, 2026