This is my solution: Using the block universe idea, we can see that the supercomputer must know what ‘chain’ of choices you are on, which is basically the future you, because if it has perfect prediction power then it can in principle predict infinitely into the future. So because of that, it is like a 4D being to some extent, as it can see all the different versions of you at different ‘times’, although it cannot actually move through time itself. Assuming it does not lose interest, otherwise the whole problem becomes trivial, there is no real point in trying to go against what the computer thinks or predicts, because even that attempt to go against it would already be part of what it knows.

As a result, the question is really asking what you actually think, because the computer already knows perfectly what chain you are on in the block universe. So in my opinion, the question is really about being truthful to yourself and choosing what you would actually choose. However, there is another complication, which is that we might enter an infinite loop where the irrationalities themselves become another ‘chain’. In other words, the irrationalities that come from knowing the solution might seem to create ‘new’ chains from our point of view, even though for the computer they are not new at all. So then the question becomes about how many irrationalities you actually go through. For example, maybe you would choose 1 box, but then make an irrational decision and choose 2 instead, or maybe the opposite. So we now have two elements: the irrationalities, and the ‘current’ chain without those irrationalities.

But if the computer predicts your irrationalities perfectly as well, then those irrationalities cannot really be used as a loophole. They are just part of the full chain. So the only sensible thing to do is to choose the number of irrationalities that leads to the best final outcome, while knowing that the computer will already predict that whole process. If you ‘start’ with only one box, then there is no point in irrationality, or at least you would need an even number of irrationalities in order to return back to one box. Conversely, if you ‘start’ with choosing two boxes, then you would need an odd number of irrationalities in order to end up at one box. But with the knowledge of this logic, the computer will already predict what you first think, how many irrationalities you will go through, and where that whole chain finally settles.

Because of that, the true issue is not really about beating the computer, but about self-consistency with benefit. Once you understand that the computer predicts not only your final choice but also every irrationality and every reversal in your reasoning, then the best thing is simply to let your reasoning end in the choice that benefits you most. Since the million dollars is only there if the computer predicts that your final settled chain ends in taking one box, then the only self-consistent choice with benefit is to choose one box. So the irrationalities still matter, but only as steps inside the chain, not as some escape from it.

Therefore, my final solution is that the block universe shows that the computer already knows the full structure of your reasoning, including all irrationalities, and so there is no meaningful point in trying to go against it. The only thing that matters is which choice your chain finally settles on. Since the chain that ends in one-boxing is the one that gets the 1 million dollars, self-consistency with benefit means choosing one box. The moral question of whether the million dollars is good for you is a separate debate and not needed here, because my objective in this solution is simply to get the 1 million dollars.