Vitalik's astonishing conclusion! The smarter you are, the more dangerous it is; only foolish rules can save the smart people.

Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin pointed out in his latest article “Galaxy Brain Resistance” that the smarter a person is, the more likely they are to fall into thinking traps, using high IQ to justify unethical behavior. He suggested returning to simple moral principles to resist Galaxy Brain-style self-deception. Galaxy Brain originated from an internet meme used to praise brilliant ideas, but later became an ironic reference to overthinking behavior.

Galactic Brain Trap: The Self-Deception of Smart People

The Chinese translation of Galaxy Brain is “銀河大腦”, but it actually comes from an internet meme, similar to images of multiple glowing brains stacked on top of each other. Initially, it was of course a compliment, used to praise someone's ideas as brilliant, meaning they are smart. However, as its usage became rampant, it gradually turned into a form of irony, roughly meaning “overthinking, logic getting too far.”

Vitalik mentions the “galactic brain” here, specifically referring to the behavior of “using high intelligence for mental gymnastics to insist that unreasonable things are actually very reasonable.” For example: clearly cutting jobs to save money, but insisting it is “to deliver high-quality talent to society”; obviously issuing worthless tokens to exploit investors, yet claiming it is “to empower the global economy through decentralized governance.” These can all be considered examples of “galactic brain” thinking.

The concept of Resistance is easy to get confused with; in popular terms, it can be likened to “the ability to avoid being led by the rhythm” or “the ability to avoid being fooled.” Therefore, Galaxy Brain Resistance should be understood as Resistance to becoming Galaxy Brain, which means: “the ability to resist becoming a Galaxy Brain (nonsense).” Or more accurately, it describes how difficult it is for a particular style of thinking or argumentation to be misused to “prove any conclusion you want.”

This “resistance” can be directed against a certain “theory.” The theory of Low Resistance: with just a little scrutiny, it can evolve into an extremely absurd “Galaxy Brain” logic. The theory of High Resistance: no matter how you scrutinize it, it remains unchanged and is difficult to evolve into absurd logic. For example, Vitalik said that the ideal social law should have a red line: it should only be prohibited when it can be clearly explained how a certain behavior causes harm or risk to specific victims. This standard has a strong Galaxy Brain resistance because it does not accept vague or infinitely stretchable reasons such as “I subjectively dislike it” or “it is immoral.”

The Danger of Long-Termism: The Infinite Extension of Time as an All-Purpose Excuse

Vitalik cited many examples in the article, even using theories we often hear about, such as “long-termism” and “inevitabilism.” “Long-termism” is difficult to resist the erosion of a galaxy-brain type of thinking, as its resistance is extremely low, it's practically a “blank check.” Because the “future” is too distant and too vague.

High resilience statement: “This tree can grow 5 meters tall in 10 years.” This is verifiable and not easy to fabricate. Low resilience “long-termism”: “Although I am about to do something extremely unethical (like eliminating a portion of people or starting a war), it is for the sake of humanity being able to live a utopian life in 500 years. According to my calculations, the total happiness in the future is infinite, so the sacrifices made now are negligible.”

You see, as long as you stretch the time long enough, you can justify any wrongdoing in the present. As Vitalik said: “If your argument can justify anything, then your argument proves nothing.” However, Vitalik also acknowledges that “the long term is important.” What he criticizes is “using overly vague, unverifiable long-term benefits to mask the clear harm in the present.”

In the cryptocurrency space, this kind of long-termism rhetoric is extremely common. Many project teams, when questioned about the unreasonable tokenomics or large-scale selling by the team, will argue that “we are laying out a vision for 10 years from now.” When investors face a 90% loss, the project team will say, “this is a necessary bear market washout, and long-term holders will ultimately be rewarded.” This rhetoric exploits the unverifiability of “long-term,” making it difficult for critics to refute.

Inevitabilism: The Perfect Art of Avoiding Responsibility

Another disaster zone is “Inevitabilism.” This is also a favorite defense mechanism used in Silicon Valley and the tech circle. The rhetoric goes like this: “The replacement of human jobs by AI is an inevitability of history; even if I don’t do it, others will. Therefore, my radical development of AI is not for profit, but to align with the trends of history.”

Where is the low resistance? It perfectly dissolves a person's sense of responsibility. Since it is “inevitable,” I no longer need to take responsibility for the destruction I have caused. This is also a typical galactic brain: packaging the private desire of “I want to make money / I want to have power” as “I am carrying out the mission of history.”

In the Web3 field, determinism rhetoric is also rampant. “The blockchain revolution is inevitable, and centralized systems will surely collapse” — this kind of discourse provides excuses for various radical actions. Issuing high-inflation tokens? No problem, because the collapse of fiat currency is inevitable. Ignoring security audits for a quick launch? No problem, because move fast and break things is the inevitable path of innovation. These defenses exploit the unfalsifiability of “inevitability.”

Two Main Characteristics of Low Resistance Theory

Time Extension: Push the judgment criteria to a distant future, making current actions unverifiable.

Dissolution of Responsibility: Packaging personal choices as historical inevitability to evade moral responsibility.

High Resistance Rules: Returning to the moral iron laws of kindergarten

Confronted with these “traps of the smart people,” Vitalik's remedy is surprisingly simple, even a bit “foolish.” He believes that the smarter a person is, the more they need highly resistant rules to constrain themselves, preventing their mental acrobatics from going awry. First, adhere to “Deontological Ethics,” which is the moral iron law at the kindergarten level.

Stop trying to solve complicated math problems about “for the future of all humanity” and return to the most rigid principles: don’t steal, don’t kill innocent people, don’t commit fraud, respect the freedom of others. These rules are highly resistant because they are black and white, and there’s no room for negotiation. When you try to explain why you misappropriated user funds with the grand principles of “long-termism,” the rigid rule of “don’t steal” will slap you in the face: stealing is stealing, don’t talk about some great financial revolution.

The suggestion to return to simple rules is philosophically known as Deontological Ethics. Unlike utilitarianism (which calculates the maximization of overall happiness), deontology emphasizes that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. Not killing is simply not killing; it cannot be justified by the argument “killing one person to save a hundred.” This absolutism gives deontology a very high Galaxy Brain resistance.

High Resistance Moral Iron Law

Do not steal: No matter how noble the reason, misappropriation of funds is theft.

Do not kill innocent people: One cannot justify current harm with “long-term benefits”.

Do not scam: No matter how beautifully packaged, false advertising is still a scam.

Respect the freedom of others: You cannot force others to accept your choices because of “inevitable trends”.

Impact of the Physical Environment: Don't live in the San Francisco Bay Area

Second, holding the right “position,” including physical location. As the saying goes, your environment shapes your mindset. If you’re constantly in the echo chamber of the San Francisco Bay Area, surrounded by people obsessed with AI accelerationism, it’s hard to stay grounded. Vitalik even made a high-resistance suggestion on a physical level: don’t live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This suggestion seems like a joke, but it is profound. When surrounded by homogenized viewpoints, your thinking unconsciously aligns with the group. The San Francisco Bay Area, as a global center for technological innovation, gathers a large number of entrepreneurs and investors in AI, cryptocurrency, and biotechnology. These individuals often hold an extremely optimistic belief in technology, thinking that technology can solve all problems, and that acting quickly is more important than cautious evaluation. In such an environment, dissenting voices are regarded as “not understanding innovation” or “conservative and backward.”

The mechanisms by which physical location affects cognition have been confirmed by social psychology. When everyone you come into contact with on a daily basis is doing something or saying something, you will perceive it as “normal” or “correct.” The bubble culture of Silicon Valley, the greed culture of Wall Street, and the ivory tower culture of academia are all manifestations of this groupthink. The physical separation suggested by Vitalik is, in fact, a means of cognitive diversification: leaving the echo chamber, engaging with people from different backgrounds and value systems, and maintaining independent thinking.

From the perspective of Web3 practices, many successful project founders indeed choose to stay away from Silicon Valley. Vitalik himself has been traveling around the world for many years, rather than being fixed in a specific tech hub. This mobility allows him to engage with different cultures and viewpoints, avoiding getting trapped in the thinking bubble of a single group.

Galaxy Brain Examples in the Crypto Space

The cryptocurrency space is filled with galaxy-brain justifications. Sam Bankman-Fried of FTX once defended his high-risk behavior with “effective altruism,” claiming that misappropriating user funds for high-leverage trading was to earn more money to donate to charity. Do Kwon of Terra/LUNA defended his unsustainable economic model with “algorithmic stablecoins are financial innovation.” These are typical cases of covering simple wrongdoing with complex theories.

Vitalik's article is essentially a warning to those exceptionally intelligent elites: just because you have a high IQ, don’t think you can bypass simple moral boundaries. The “galactic brain” theories that seem to explain everything are often the most dangerous万能藉口. On the contrary, the “high resistance” rules that sound rigid and dogmatic are the last line of defense against self-deception.

For cryptocurrency practitioners and investors, this article provides an important cognitive framework. When you hear a project party explaining its unusual behavior with complex theories, ask yourself: is this true innovation, or is it a galaxy brain-style self-deception? When you try to find reasons for your speculative behavior, return to the simplest rule: does this really align with the moral baseline?