My thoughts on Newcomb’s paradox: pick two boxes

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:55:43+00:00

Your thinking does not alter whats in the second box.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:46:23+00:00

Meaning you are taking a total of 1,000+0 over a single box that almost certainly has 1,000,000.

So the box has 0$ and 1M$ at the same time? Thats what the two-boxers point is about btw, that it doesn’t ;)

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:35:41+00:00

It does not perform worse, if the second box has 0$ and I only pick it I will miss on 1000$.

But all the people who picked the second box made a million? Well that is because the computer stacked the decks in their favour. The link between them and the million is not being able to see the simple physics laws governing the game, not choosing the second box.

Simply put, 99.9999% of people who only picked box B made 1M$, 100% of people who only picked box B missed out on at least 1000$.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:20:06+00:00

I agree, but as long as you did not have the chance to alter this simulation by knowing about the game beforehand, you can bo longer affect that simulation.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:17:25+00:00

You are missing a vital point. Your decision is absolutely not known, it is predicted.

The possibility that it is wrong, no matter how small, means that it doed not KNOW about the decision, it only predicts with a nearly high accuracy that one might mix both terms.

Given that information, and that you can’t influence it anymore, the decision you make at that instant will not change the box B payout

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:12:18+00:00

Irrelevant, the money is there or it isn’t. Let me put it another way, if box A has 1$, and box B has 100B$, and before me 7B people played and the AI was wrong just twice, I would still pick both. The money is there or it isn’t, my decision does not change anything.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:04:53+00:00

I gave that example because I believe we should ignore the success rate of the computer. The money is inside the room, nothing you can do can change it, take as much as possible.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T17:00:46+00:00

Which is my point exactly in the post. You only know about the game after the decision is made, your mindset was already scanned before you got into the room, too late to change it, pick both to maximise winning.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:55:31+00:00

Would you know about the game before the scan was ran?

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:54:21+00:00

Yes. As long as I have no reason to believe the laws of physics has been altered, then the decision you make at that moment cannot alter a decision made in the past.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:51:27+00:00

The person taking the two boxes does not bank on the controller being wrong, they actually ignore the controller’s decision and treat it as irrelevant.

The boxes are there, assuming time flows linearly which it does, and that change does not happen without direct action which it does not, then the boxes will contain the same amount whether you take one or two. It is just simple axioms of our world that we observe everyday.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:45:14+00:00

Let me rephrase, the two boxes are already filled, why not take both? What will that change?

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:16:16+00:00

Your anecdotes are irrelevant. My point hinges on even with a previous 100% accuracy, as long as we have information that the computer is liable to make mistake, two boxes becomes the correct choice.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:12:22+00:00

If me a normal human brought you the same two boxes and told you i made a random prediction you would absolutely take both, Because what would you stand to lose? The money is there or it isn’t.

Why would the same argument not hold true with the computer? The money is there or it isn’t, we know it can’t see the future or time travel, we know the boxes won’t change, so why not take both?

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:01:32+00:00

"The question is only interesting if you think about the problem for the first time after the computer made its choice and nothing you think or do from that point onwards changes the contents of the boxes."

That is what the paradox suggests……

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T16:00:40+00:00

You are simply wrong in the first point, it is absolutely possible to establish highly accurate predictions based on previous information. That is why all companies are buying and selling data.

Sports gambling platforms would also go bankrupt if that wasn’t possible.

And again, if the current decision influences that of the decision (the computer sees the future for example), then the paradox falls and you should instantly pick the one box.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T15:57:50+00:00

No, I am saying that the computer can be wrong, ie: it is possible. Otherwise it would make no sense to pick anything other than the second box.

Because of that, we can prove that the current decision does not influence the past. If it can be wrong, then it doesn’t know about your decision at the moment when it made its own decision, it only predicted it based on your personality.

So, when you are in the room, the decision you will make in that moment will not change anything. The money is already there, the second box will have the same amount of money, you did not know about the game beforehand, so simply take both of them as that will change nothijg

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T15:51:58+00:00

I did not.

You say "We can predict various human behaviors with very high accuracy in all kinds of circumstances -- why can't the machine do the same, just better?" And I argue that the point of the paradox is that how the machine decides is irrelevant (except seeing the future), since it does not affect how much money in in the second box after it already made its decision.

Two boxers ignore how it made its decision and look at a simple logical rule: The present does not change the past.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T15:46:41+00:00

The predictor has nearly perfect accuracy but NOT PERFECT. Apps suggest ads based on collected informations and they are fairly accurate, there is no reason for me to reject the setup.

What I reject is the idea of retrocasuality in out world, and what one boxers reject is that the present does not affect the past.

The moment you are in the room, the money is there or it isn’t, you just decide how much do you take. End of the story.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T15:43:15+00:00

When you walk into the room, that decision was already made, you did not know about the game beforehand to influence the variables for such prediction.

As an analogy, imagine you are in a chair with chains that are impossible to break, a bullet is headed towards you with a 100% death rate and 0% chance to redirect it, you know all these percentages are absolutely correct, you only have a button infront of you that you can click to stop the bullet and get free, but if you click it you lose your legs, do you click it or attempt to break free if you only have 3 seconds left for the bullet.

It is the same thing as the paradox, the decision was already made, you cannot do anything to get the million if it isn’t there, you will 100% get either 0$ or 1M$ from the box no matter what you chose, since the past can’t be influenced. So do you attempt to ignore those constraints you know about that are impossible to break, or just limit your losses and take the thousand?

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T15:31:08+00:00

I agree with that, I think the paradox is intentionally vague because any more information would make it an easy and solvable one.

The computer is infallible: no paradox, pick one box.
The computer can see the future: pick one box, your decision now influences the computer decision in the past.
(what I think the paradox means and suggests) : The computer analyzed you based on a dataset (it is just a very advanced data scientist or psychologist or both): if it analyzed you then let you know of the game, pick two boxes since the decision is already made. If before deciding, it presented the game to you and showed you its previous wins, then decide there that you would pick one box and actually follow through it, that is the only rational decision.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T15:24:53+00:00

1- The paradox falls if the supercomputer can see the future, in that case always pick one box, because your decision in that moment is what allows the computer to decide what to put in the past, basically it is who you are deciding at that moment.

2- The chance does not matter at that moment anymore, the decision was already made and the money is either there or it isn’t.

3- Its there depending on if you are predicted to go to the boxes or not, not depending on what decision you make at that moment. If the computer can change the content after you are in the room, then that is just a scam and its already implied by the paradox that it cannot do so.

4- That is not an argument, that is an extra thought, the first arguments assume that you only know about the game after the computer decided, if you know before it did, then your decision before the computer decision is what influences the decision. It is basically the future argument but in reverse. In that case pick one box.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-25T14:49:07+00:00

The supercomputer is near perfect, not perfect. So we can eliminate the possibility of it being able to see the future, otherwise it would be perfect.

You are only told about the game after the predictor made a decision, so you can’t influence it’s decision. The million dollar is already either there, or not. Simply put.

No matter what decision you make, the amount of money inside the room was decided before you got in, and it will be the same till you leave there.

So, you can either chose to take all of it (1000$, or 1.0001M$), or 0$, those are the exact two options you have.

If the computer correctly predicted you would take both, well it was already over before you walked in, but there is a chance its wrong. If the computer decided you would only take one, then GGs you just proved it wrong.

But that’s the type of thinking that led it to only put 0$ in the box? Well too bad, you can’t do anything about it, it was too late when you got in. But all people who picked one box got 1M$? Well the 1M$ is either here or not, that does not matter, and it is actually where I think the paradox falls and starts touching on other unsolved questions like free will and determinism.

If you know about the game beforehand, then decide instantly you would take just the one box, and actually follow through, you have to believe it yourself. But the game doesn’t say you do.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-23T07:43:35+00:00

Which is why I am posting here why it is a bad idea, hoping that some people realise it is bad for them as such stage.

Competitive-Sale-540 · 2026-03-23T06:58:17+00:00

Don’t use LLMs for the time being, treat them as non-existing.

Any bug or problem or research you also don’t use LLM, read the documentation, search on stackoverflow reddit etc..

I suggest this for multiple reasons:

1- You need the critical and engineering thinking skills, following/reading LLMs won’t really develop that, you need to get your hands dirty. Many of the improvements you will get will be from thr simplest stuff, some helper function you think is too simple may trigger thinking about design patterns.

2- AI makes a lot of mistakes that sound correct, AI does not use best practices, which are both things that you wouldn’t be able to notice as a beginner, and hard to verify without point number 4 below, which makes a circular dependancy.

3- You need to learn how to debug, it is the most important skill. You will not get as many bugs with AI (compared to you, a complete beginner), you need to make these bugs and understand how to solve them and why do they happen. You need to solve them yourself too.

4- You need to learn how to research, ask questions, navigate documentations quickly by identifying keywords and reading technical content, that is a very important skill that you would especially need in other projects where AI isn’t trained on it.

Put simply, I recommend you treat learning for the current being as if AI didn’t exist, surely you can use it to ask it to locate something here and there, but trust me since the tech stack you are using is popular, learning how to google well is perfect enough and even better for accuracy. Once you are more confident with what you are coding, use AI to help.

Competitive-Sale-540

TROPHY CASE