You are presented with two boxes, one transparent (labeled A) and the other opaque (labeled B). You have two choices: take the contents of both boxes, or just the opaque Box B. Box A contains a visible $1,000. The contents of Box B, however, are determined as follows: At some point before the start of the game, the Predictor makes a prediction as to whether you will take just Box B, or both boxes. If the Predictor predicts that both boxes will be taken, then Box B will contain nothing. If the Predictor predicts that only Box B will be taken, then Box B will contain $1,000,000.

By the time the game begins, the prediction has already been made, and the contents of Box B have already been determined. That is, Box B contains either $0 or $1,000,000 before the game begins, and once the game begins even the Predictor is powerless to change the contents of the boxes.

Do you take both boxes, or just Box B?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49964924)

If we learn somehow that the machine is wrong more often than presumed then I would two box. Because the wronger the machine the better it is to take two. But if it's infallible the retrocausality is real because you can effect the past by your present actions. If it's 100% impossible for the machine to be wrong then you always get a million for taking one box and two boxers always get 1000.

Two boxers can argue that retrocausality isn't real however it's implied by the hypo that it must be possible the closer the machine gets to 100% accuracy. And that's why the hypo itself is flawed because it's an impossible experiment in reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49964945)

the money is already in the boxes by the time you're called on to make your choice. no matter what it predicted, you get more money by taking both. if it predicted both, you get $1,000 instead of $0. If it predicted one, you get $1,001,000 instead of $1,000,000.

one intuition pump: imagine your best friend is there, on the opposite side of the boxes, and he can see into them. no matter what, he's going to tell you take both.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49964968)

The whole hypo doesn't really make any sense. There are better version of it that the LessWrong fags made up that actually make coherent sense

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49964995)

I know there's one where the Predictor is a really talented psychiatrist who has spent years profiling you, analyzing every waking move you've ever made since birth (maybe it's in the form of transcripts or they watch you at accelerated speed or something), and has never been wrong predicting a decision of anyone they've studied.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49965005)

These midwit redditors absolutely love to stroke themselves to reminding you that RETROCAUSALITY is IMPOSSIBLE so you CANNOT EFFECT whether the million is in one of the boxes. So it LITERALLY DOES NOT MATTER if you take one or both, and both is always 1000 MORE. They will tell you this over and over til your ears bleed. They can't get enough of dunking on 1 boxers with the NO RETROCAUSALITY argument, which they love more than life itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49964973)

not affecting the past. being a person in the present who is rich in the future 😎

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49965034)

If you BOX B ALPHA and it turns out there's no money, who gives a fuck-- you can look that ai-chatbot NIGGER in his faggot hallucinating cyber face and tell him that he's a STUPID FUCKING NIGGER and his .00001% error rate is probably as real as the NYT trump-victory-odds needle.

You can't put a fucking price on that shit. I'm Box B TO THE HILT and you could, I shit you not, put $50,000 in box A and I'm still punching that cunt right in the face. I'm getting so pumped up typing this right now that you could just put $1M in box A and I'm still Box B ride or die.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49965149)

The irony is that a two boxer who lost the million would go on bragging forever about how at the time he two boxed the money was already not in box B and so he made 1000 more than zero.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49965155)

Missing out on an immediate $1,000 is NBD. We’re not Benzo.

And every single one of us had better be able to monetize being one of the 1 in 10 million people that the machines can’t predict. TedTalk, book deal, YouTube self-improvement channel, corporate speaking gigs, and whatever the fuck else we can come up with. Honestly it would be embarrassing if anyone here can’t spin that into WAY more than $1M.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966211)

Thanks in advance!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966265)

It illustrates that the hypo is silly to begin with. There's no "meaning" in it unless there's a real possibility for the predictor to be wrong

And you can play with the % possibility of the predictor to be wrong in order to determine whether or not one or two boxing is rational; this is the reason for the particular dollar amounts being chosen, so you can make that statistical calculation

The only meaningful way to ask the question imo is to present it like you did in the op (I think, I can't hit back now bc I'm typing this out) where you put it at 99%. In this case if you run the odds it makes more sense to one box. But you have to believe in retrocausality in order to do this, since the predictor is no longer Magically Perfect, and has a real chance of being incorrect. It requires a real Leap Of Faith which seems to make no sense, given how causality in our universe works, and the fact that at any given moment we *seem* to have complete free will of choice as humans

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966279)

(it was also stipulated in the OG that you can't get around it by randomizing your choice; the machine gives you zero if you do that.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966361)

Take both boxes - there's either (i) $1 mm + $1,000 or (ii) $1,000 in Box A and nothing in Box B. If its nothing, you realize the computer predicted this, and you realize you're a dumbass. Contemplate suicide and wonder why you were so stupid.

Take only box b - either (i) you get $1 mm (so only 0.1% less than the upside of Box b or (ii) you don't get $1 mm, in which case the computer was wrong and you can just write the whole thing off as the computer being dumb as fuck. Plus, you can probably sue whoever told you all this for misleading claims and make a big stink about how they're precious machine was wrong.

When you look at it through the actual real life ramifications, it is so obvious taking only box B is the superior choice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966269)

$1M, however, is material for most people.

If Box B were $5M or $0 and Box A were $1M I would take just Box B, on the supposition that I just don't know what causation is and I'm willing to give up what my folk intuition would call a sure $1M to guarantee a higher ex ante expected value.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966305)

although I hope rach will have pulled the plug by then

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5877705&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864#49966331)