Newcomb's Paradox - What Would You Choose?

Newcomb’s paradox has been dividing people for the last 50 years, with answers to the problem split almost equally. At the heart of the paradox lies a conflict between two principles of decision theory: the expected utility principle, and the dominance principle. Choosing to open both boxes, or just the second box, are both rational choices. But what would you choose?
Sources and additional reading:
goo.gl/qSPGmt
goo.gl/1DMd1s
goo.gl/A38PQk
goo.gl/pjWXss
goo.gl/Pa9Pfs
goo.gl/8cUWe8
goo.gl/ab1oXc
Music:
"Frost Waltz", "The Other Side of the Door"
Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Website: www.smartbydesignstudio.com
Facebook: goo.gl/cBvvZj

[@Leafycoke]

Box 1 so I can just watch the supercomputer malfunction in confusion as it attempts to process my decision

[@o.sunsfamily]

That answer is great! Thinking outside the box!

[@kenlim6485]

@@o.sunsfamily Outside the box and into the broke

[@orange1304]

@@o.sunsfamily Pun intended?

[@HisMajesty.]

orgelekS right! I’m like am I misreading or misunderstanding something I’m going to take what I can see..... it’s guaranteed

[@mitchelltan5450]

@@HisMajesty. if u take what u can see, why not just open 2 as well. for the chance of 1million more

[@butterplayz_yt9606]

Guys, you have to think outside of the box on this one, just take the supercomputer, must be worth way more than 1 mil right?

[@torktork2898]

ButterPlayz_YT no

[@casohulk1398]

Open box 2 and then take the supercomputer

[@doe-dw9lo]

Fuck it, just rob the place

[@DarksideChaotix]

This guy gets it!

[@pugilistspecialist70]

An organisation that can afford that computer and to give £1M away in a series of experiments can likely afford decent security though.

[@walrusassociation9317]

If you just the second box, you'll either make a million or teach this Super Computer some humility.

[@the_well-known_stranger2275]

If it’s wrong you can still take the 1st one afterwards

[@timepass4783]

@@the_well-known_stranger2275 ya well, right

[@timepass4783]

But I'll certainly break the Super Computer to pieces

[@AzedoTranslated]

both are just as valuble

[@xsuploader]

@@the_well-known_stranger2275 no you can't because that is a two boxing behaviour and if you did that the computer would have classified you as a 2 boxer

[@michaelnewton8048]

"The mystery box could be anything. Even a boat. You know how much we've wanted a boat"

[@thatcopenguy]

If I open box 2 and there's 0, I'm suing the supercomputer company.

[@bongobliss5795]

Suing such a big company would probably cost way more than a million pounds

[@matthewhoward6106]

@@bongobliss5795 Getting sue'd for a million pounds would also cost more than placing a million pounds in the box. Therefore it would only be logical to fill the second box with 1 million to reduce cost output.

[@redymedy]

go to open the 2nd box then break the computer once it pit the million pound

[@DocDaibhi]

Nobody said that, if you open only box 2, you are sure to get a million. They just said that the computer has never failed (until now).

[@Amozri]

He was just making a joke... butthurts why so serious lmao

[@dragonslayer015]

You just said the super computer has never made a wrong prediction. I'm going with box 2.

[@Ghostface3200]

No, that would be the Monte Carlo fallacy

[@iainrichards6872]

then you will get nothing because the computer predicted you would choose that box. that is the prediction it has never gotten wrong.

[@thetayz72]

@@iainrichards6872 No, the premise stated at 0:29 is that if it predicts you will pick both boxes, it puts nothing in the 2nd box. If it predicts you will take only the 2nd box, it puts one million pounds in the second box. You are, by the premise that the computer has never been wrong before, being guaranteed 1 million pounds by taking Box 2. Since we're informed it has never been incorrect, you can safely assume picking both boxes will lead to only 1,000 pounds unless you are its first failed prediction.

[@trevorspinosa3846]

Ghost no, it is not the monte carlo fallacy it is simply probability.

[@naveenchandu3845]

If the super computer predicts to open Box 2, it mean Box 2 contains £1000000 for sure since it has never gone wrong. So in such a case u can open both the boxes and end up getting £1001000. And if at all it predicts to open both the boxes, then go with the computer and get £1000

[@Pumbear]

Considering the robot has never been wrong, this implies there have been previous winners. Imagine them showing you a list of the previous prize winners before you make your pick. According to the list the 46 contestants that picked both only got 1000 and the 53 contestants that picked box 2 got a million. Surely you would then go for box 2?

[@Oskar1000]

I agree, I'm a one boxer my self. But when you are in the room there is a fixed amount of money in the boxes. The prediction has been made, why not take all the money in the room.

[@Pumbear]

@@Oskar1000 I totally get where you're coming from and in the real world you would be right. I think the issue with this hypothecial problem is that it invokes some magical thinking. Somehow the supercomputer has been able to predict every time when a participant thought they were smart enough to outsmart the computer, but also every time people were going to take both boxes but decided to trust the ai at the very end and only go for box 2. It is effectively a machine that predicts the future and as such there's no choice. There is only box 2.

[@Oskar1000]

@@Pumbear I would pick box two even if it was like 80% accurate in respect to my end choice.

[@Oskar1000]

Or even 60%, but so do agree that even getting a computer to get that much accuracy is a bit magical.

[@batlrar]

This is pretty much in line with my logic. I don't think the AI is magical, but the fact is it just made 100 correct guesses. This means it's basing its logic on something, be it social media profiles or some sort of examination of you while you're waiting, like viewing your micro facial expressions, body language, or whether you ate some of the complimentary snacks available. The AI is presumably smart enough to correctly predict everyone's choice ahead of time, even those who likely had the same thought that they would pretend to prefer box 2 until the last possible second and then pick both boxes. Since the AI is so effective at picking up on this information beforehand, your best odds lie with trusting its decision making ability all the way through the process. Also, I don't see a paradox here, just a third variable.

[@MrScoodles]

Seems straightforward. People who think the machine can be outsmarted pick both boxes. People who go by the details of the thought experiment without sneaking in additional assumptions pick box 2.

[@Elyzeon.]

Yup, people who pick both boxes think they can out think the supercomputer.

[@Elyzeon.]

Oh and the reason they do that is because the money is either already in the box or not so why not take both boxes, my choice couldn't possibly change the outcome, and they probably don't understand how srodingers cat is possible because this is basically that

[@RapperRank]

@@Elyzeon. yeah and the computer already knows you're gonna try and take both so the money actually isn't going to be in the box...

[@Bob-uh9fw]

@@Elyzeon. well 1000000 is more than a 1000 so ill take the 2 box

[@Fightre_Flighte]

@@RapperRank But it predicts what decision you'll make some time before entering the room. So you go into it thinking that box 2 is the better option. As soon as you're in the room, you can think and process as much as you'd like. And I keep running into a problem. Because every scenario like this is crushed by one phrase, and I need help with my brain. "But what if the computer predicted that?"

[@jpboy1962]

The non-mathematical answer: A $1000 is not a significant amount of money. Getting it or not getting will not change your life. As such it is not enough to risk not getting the $1,000,000. The correct choice is to take only box 2. Walk away with a $1,000,000: life altered. Walk away with nothing: life not altered.

[@Hi-uv7nn]

What world do you live in 1000$ is a heck of a lot

[@thechosenbossk4352]

dark mode is better On KZbin he said not significant, definitely compared to 1 million

[@danielyeshe]

@@Hi-uv7nn Not compared with a million $1000 would pay for a nice trip or something but would be gone pretty quickly. 1 million means never having to work again. I can save 1000 in a year I will most probably never have 1 million.

[@Wick9876]

@@Hi-uv7nn No, it's a fortnight's labor. You'll likely earn it a thousand times over during your life. $1M puts the earnings of a lifetime in your hands now.

[@Alexanderrayman]

Yeah, I'd go for box no. 2. Not worth risking it for $1000.

[@butterplayz_yt9606]

Screw it, don’t take any box, the computer can’t predict that

[@randompastahandle]

The real question is if you do that what will be in the 2nd box?

[@butterplayz_yt9606]

Ben Chermside doesn’t matter, not taking it anyways

[@8msquared870]

big brain right here

[@RustedBass]

Just take box 1 and flip off the supercomputer

[@PVempati]

Take the computer itself

[@planetruths1373]

"What's in the box? What's in the box?! WHATS IN THE BOX!!"

[@NWAWskeptic]

John Doe has the upper hand

[@TallSilentGuy]

A bunny. Now please put it back in the box...

[@ClassifiedMe]

I know right when i read the thumbnail

[@davidcharles7106]

A bloody head for God's sake!

[@dylanmiles7407]

This strikes me as a cross between game theory and Schrodinger’s cat

[@JamesPacardo]

Same

[@miikavihersaari3104]

Schrodinger's cash

[@pianoslayer2516]

I think that this "paradox", like many, is built on a false premise. If we remove the supercomputer's prediction, it's easy to see that you should choose both boxes. The supercomputer is added into the problem under the premise that it's always right. If the computer is always right, then it knows your choice before it's been made. Ergo, choosing both boxes will only give you $1000, whereas choosing box two gives you $1,000,000. I think the real confusion of this problem is in understanding whether the supercomputer has perfect accuracy or not. If it is always correct, then you should clearly choose only box two. If it's correct in the overwhelming majority of cases, then you should still choose box two.

[@Zyker91]

I think this problem is more related to greed than anything, if the computer is always right then you only need to choose, what do you whant 1k or 1M?, people who chose the 2 boxes for 1k+1M are just greedy and will only get 1k, there is nothing else to it

[@fenhen]

Piano Slayer It’s not that simple, because the supercomputer has already chosen before you have, therefore you changing your mind cannot possible affect what the supercomputer has chosen. The premise isn’t that the computer is totally infallible, just that it is either almost infallible or that it has got every prediction right so far.

[@sasquashownz1]

Pretty much word for word what I was thinking. Almost all of these 'paradoxes' are built upon either a ridiculous premise, or (as I believe in this case) they completely throw the original premise out the window (e.g. 'supercomputer' was used to not have to explain the way it makes its predictions. Told it has predicted every previous one correct, and then the question goes on to act as if the computer wouldn't be able to predict the person changing decisions at the last second). The computer is either unimaginably good at predicting things or it isn't. Pick a premise and stick with it.

[@samiabe8686]

The supercomputer is added to the problem under the premise that it will always make the most rational prediction not that it is always right.

[@TheTomyes7]

You just said what i thought but didnt know how to put it into words

[@Cagon415]

This just boils down to how much a person trusts the computer's ai.

[@damiankaleomontero496]

90% accuracy, pay attention

[@cheeseymattybob]

I think you’re missing the point of the thought experiment; factors like that aren’t supposed to come into it, you assume it’s near perfect accuracy.

[@lucasala9625]

@@damiankaleomontero496 that was an example, pay attention

[@user-un8jx8yo7z]

@@damiankaleomontero496 The original problem says that the super computer has never made a mistake before how is that 90% accuracy it's 100% accuracy.

[@squirlez6349]

@@user-un8jx8yo7z Unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that, being right a finite amount of times doesn't guarantee any particular accuracy except that it must be right sometimes. Same goes for anything, i.e. it's possible to flip a coin 100 times and get heads every time, as unlikely as that is, so we can't actually know how accurate the computer is.

[@Phoenix-King-ozai]

Box 2 That shitty 1000 isn’t worth the risk of loosing the 1M

[@zlatanibrahimovic8329]

“That shitty one thousand” could just be changed to 999k. Then what do you do?

[@nostro1940]

@@zlatanibrahimovic8329 wat?

[@jani5243]

@@zlatanibrahimovic8329 doesn't make any sense

[@DeepakJaiswal-qe1df]

I know, I agree. 1000 is nothing compared to 1M, so I wouldn't risk it either and just take the second box. I will have (let's say the AI is 90% accurate, because it said it has never failed any prediction) a 90% to become a millionaire and a 10% to gain nothing and live on my life normally.

[@Bob-uh9fw]

@@zlatanibrahimovic8329 thats not the situation here

[@Antifag1977]

There is a HUGE difference between a supercomputer with "unerring accuracy" and one with 90% accuracy. The question was presented with the former assumption while the math was presented with the latter. If the computer has ALWAYS been correct after hundreds of operations then I would pick box 2. It would be worth losing the 1000 lbs and walking away empty handed IMO to be the 1st person the computer failed. And if its only correct 9 out of 10 times then I would open both. If the 1st box had a huge sum of money in it then it wouldn't be worth it to be the 1st person the computer erred on and I would just take the sure thing even if im turning down a chance for alot more.

[@demenobody1099]

Lol lbs he means 1000 quid as in £

[@Antifag1977]

@@demenobody1099 I know...pounds as in the British currency. What made you think I mistook it for one of the other meanings of the word 'pound'?

[@josephhurley3314]

@@Antifag1977 you said "1000 lbs" in your comment

[@Antifag1977]

@@josephhurley3314 Yes. as in like 1000 bux. Im unsure of the point you are making. Are you saying that the abbreviation lbs isn't used for pounds when referring to the currency or something like that?

[@josephhurley3314]

@@Antifag1977 yeah lbs is only really used for a measurement of weight/mass, I've never seen it used for currency

[@ganymedg.8832]

The supercomputer may be a mastermind, but he won't be able to follow me when I run away with all the boxes.

[@witbyy]

wtf. yeah but you would only get £1.000 if you ran away with only box 2 you would get £1.000.000

[@ivanrivera3293]

@@witbyy What if you run away with the supercomputer too?

[@aytchemil]

witbyy you dummy, he meant all 3 boxes

[@MissMiserize]

@@aytchemil there are only 2 boxes

[@jorgerosas2516]

@@MissMiserize maybe all this adventure was to realise that we had the best box all along, inside our hearts, our friendship. You are my best box, and I'll always choose you.

[@huskytzu7709]

Well you can always sell the boxes for 50 cents each STONKS!

[@gadellomagnollo1810]

huskytzu so he said the boxes were full of pounds, but pounds of what?

[@samuelelliott8453]

@@gadellomagnollo1810 money 😂😂😂

[@gadellomagnollo1810]

Samuel Elliott five thousand pounds of dollars? What kind of bills? Ones, twos, fives? This video wasn’t very specific.

[@samuelelliott8453]

@@gadellomagnollo1810 pounds of £

[@gadellomagnollo1810]

Samuel Elliott what is an E?

[@WizDaPenguin]

I did some math and the expected value fluctuates with the computer’s accuracy. Instead of considering whether the computer would put it in the box, I considered whether it was correct or incorrect. If it has a 50.05% chance of being correct, the expected value is identical. Any higher and the expected value is higher with only box 2. Any lower and the expected value is higher to open both boxes. Boom.

[@Creshex8]

This is the correct way to go about finding the expected value. I’ve seen this situation presented where the computer is right 100% of the time. Under such a condition, box 2 has to be empty if you choose both boxes. You also showed, that for both boxes chosen to give a higher expected, the computer would need to be laughably inaccurate.

[@andrewgedge4015]

Based on the premise that the computer has predicted the outcomes of several hundred trials with "unerring accuracy", and since unerring would mean it has never been mistaken, the odds are better that if you choose box 2, the computer will have correctly predicted that outcome and placed 1mil inside. Of course, just because it has not yet made a mistake does not mean that it CAN not make a mistake. Box 2 is not a guarantee, but seems better odds for better rewards.

[@MyBiPolarBearMax]

Theres an argument that it doesnt matter. If the computer unerringly or3dicts this. Maybe it can read our synapses and we have a deterministic future based on how our brains are wired and what we pick is foregone and we only have the illusion of choice.

[@anypsotis7976]

@@MyBiPolarBearMax This is what I believe

[@AnonYmous-mc5zx]

[pulls out coin] Supercomputer: *"What're you doing?!"*

[@Elyzeon.]

Wow that is actually. Omg.. If it's actually predicting your neurological processes you actually fucking beat the machine... Jesus..

[@kristve6798]

,,This isn't how you're supposed to play the game!''

[@royanque8374]

Supercomputer: *sic* i already knew you'd do that based on your behavioral patterns, so i made a prediction based on the outcome of the coin toss... Coin weight: 1.6 grams, finger strength: 4 J,...

[@AnonYmous-mc5zx]

@@royanque8374 Take a deck of cards and assign each card with a distinctive symbol. Shuffle the deck and draw the cards to be laid out in a distinctive pattern of 50 cards (2 left out). The first 5 cards will then be compared to a list of countries. The second 5 cards will determine the monetary denomination used to be the coin that's flipped. The third 5 cards are a red herring. The fourth 5 cards will be used to choose a 2nd country. The fifth 5 cards...also a red herring. The next X cards are used to note the numerical value of a phone number as used in that country to get ahold of an individual who will be enlisted to flip the coin chosen in the second set of 5 cards. The following 5 cards after that will be used to determine the 5 numbers chosen for a powerball lottery ticket. If that ticket wins, we restart the process with a distinctive set of 50 cards from the same deck. Don't *@* me.

[@royanque8374]

@@AnonYmous-mc5zx Supercomputer: *sic* my processor is powered by the Time Stone. Surely you must have seen the color of my interface. I already saw the outcome.

[@Zwiebly]

3:35 didnt we assume at the start that the computer has 100% prediction accuracy? i dont get why it became 90%, but i guess the utility would still turn out the same so i guess it doesnt matter

[@andrewdeighton5926]

It has always been right in the past, and supposedly has 100% accuracy

[@isaacmichaels1653]

Zwiebly because if it is 100 percent accurate than choosing one box would net you a million without fail. But yeah it did seem like kind of a random addition

[@the1barbarian781]

The 100% is using previous data, which is like saying (using an analogy) that the last 10 people surveyed prefer white bedroom walls as oppose to black bedroom walls, this does not mean the the next person is 100% going to say he/she prefers white walls, but that person still has a very likely chance of preferring white walls. The same principle is used in this problem, where the computer guessed correctly every time in the past, but that does not mean it has a 100% chance of guessing correctly this time. However again the possible is very likely. The chance is probably more than 90%, but he even said in the video that that number was a conservative estimates. Hope I made sense

[@ronanstephens1597]

The 90% assumption is conservative. Even at 90 percent it makes more sense to pick box 2 only ( from the utility principle) but as that probably approachs 100 percent the utility of box 2 only gets higher.

[@Nikolapestanac]

@@the1barbarian781 but here it was stated the tests were run hundreds of times, which could be anywhere in between 200 and 900

[@davidlayman901]

While the computer has "already made its choice", and the money either is or isn't there, wouldn't the computer's choice be based on how it predicts you will think about the value of the boxes, based on your perception that the contents of the boxes can no longer change? Clearly, the contents can't change, but someone approaching the problem like it can be solved, thinking they can beat the system would never have the money in box two. In a purely logical sense, the difficulty of this thought experiment is in admitting that the logical thing to do is to 'trust' the computer's ability to predict, and choose to take what seems like objectively less money, as that is in some sense the only way to guarantee you would get more money. Very fun to think about, I would have to choose to throw away my intuition that taking both is "always more money" in order to win.

[@tcorourke2007]

It seems to me that the issue here is that the computer actually knowing what we will do in advance creates an inherent absurdity. I don't get why Nozick was interested in this and, not to brag, but I have read Anarchy, State and Utopia.

[@Nivexity]

Imagine choosing number 2, but getting nothing, however the supercomputer knew you were stubborn enough to take the supercomputer company to court for 1 million and it also knew you'd succeed.

[@NautilusSpiral]

Simply look at the probabilities as they stand: Every single individual who has ever chosen two boxes in hundreds of experiments has walked away with 1,000 before you, and every person who has chosen the single box has walked away with $1,000,000. Every single one. Every time. Without fail. Through hundreds of experiments. Apparently, with almost a 50/50 distribution of choices. If you choose the dominance principle approach and pick up both boxes, you are operating under the assumption that you will be literally the only individual in hundreds of these experiments that has ever somehow fooled the apparently omniscient supercomputer. So, I would only ever choose box 2. If the supercomputer is imperfect but has a greater than about 51% or so accuracy, then the utility principle approach works best, and 1 box maximizes return. If it Is perfect, 1 box maximizes return. If the supercomputer can only predict as well as a coin-flip, only then does the dominance principle get involved. Or, look at it yet another way: Experimentally, as we have seen, the expected utility principle approach always produces the best outcome. Always. In hundreds of tests for this problem, not once has the dominance principle EVER succeeded in maximizing returns, and has always only rewarded $1000. In an experimental setting, it apparently consistently fails. This implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with using the dominance principle approach to this problem. The dominance principle might have looked good at the start, but in light of the experimental data we are presented with, Bayesian probability tells us to ditch the damn thing. The dominance principle is assuming that the computer is operating completely independently of the person choosing, but there is a problem with that assumption: Because the supercomputer is apparently perfect, or at the very least can make predictions with greater than 99% accuracy, the supercomputer clearly has some extra source of information that is apparently capable of determining what choice will be made in advance. Because of this, I feel that those who would support the dominance principle approach are running face-first into the same predictive error that you see with the Monty Hall problem. Except instead of the host knowing where the prize is in advance, the computer apparently knows what choice will be made in advance, and adjusts the prize's presence accordingly before the person is even aware of what choice they will make. Of course, one might say: well, if everyone followed this logic, then the computer would simply have to say "they will only open one box" over and over, and would always be right. Except, of course, the real-world situation is a nearly even split of choices. If we continue to posit a perfectly (or near-perfectly) accurate computer given that split of choices, the only logical conclusion is that the computer is operating off extra information that we are not privy to. Adding the friend who can see through the back changes the balance of information and breaks the computer's information monopoly, making it impossible for the computer to be correct 100% of the time. It completely changes the nature of the problem. If we then state the computer is still 100% accurate, we can only assume even more special knowledge on the part of the computer. The only situation in which it would be appropriate to break from the one-box strategy is one in which everyone is already employing the one box strategy, and thus it is possible that the computer is not operating on special knowledge.

[@SmartbyDesign]

Great comment! Julia Galef has a video on the paradox where she talks about different types of rationality. So a 'rational character' leads to opening just the second box, whereas a 'rational act' would lead us to open both boxes. Looking at the poll results on this video, they are almost exactly the same as previous polls - 55% would choose to open only box 2.

[@walkerszczecina2804]

Smart by Design there’s nothing rational about opening both boxes. The human mind might make it seem like it is better to open both, but that is just a misconception. Box 2 is the obvious answer.

[@StrykerX94]

This problem just proves the impossibility of an omniscient being to exist within reality.

[@georgeferris6204]

Hear me out on this. The dominance principal is all about maximizing the amount that you will get. It would seem that with the information given, then you will know that everyone who chooses both boxes has only ended up with the $1,000. If you want to use the best strategy with all of the information that has been given, then it would seem that you would want to take the second box only. If we can depend on Bayesian probability as Nautilis talked about above, then we know that there is ALMOST certainly $1,000,000 in the box. But not FOR CERTAIN. The dominance principal doesn't care about what happened in the past. It only cares about what is happening this time. The money is/isn't already in the box. The computer is accurate, but not infallible. Certainly we cannot depend on probability as the money is/isn't already in the box. There is no chance when it comes to the money in the box. It is or it isn't. Well if it isn't, then why would we choose only that? It makes sense to take both boxes. BUT DOES IT?

[@georgeferris6204]

So here is how I see it. The dominance principle breaks down when the human cannot know for certain what is in the box. The dominance principal depends on certainties. Given that the money is in the box, the correct answer still is/isn't in the brain of the human. The dominance principal says that we are on one of the two paths of choice that the human will make. The human has no way of knowing whether his path will lead to success. If the human cannot know for sure, than certainly we cannot depend on the human to employ the dominance principal correctly as the human does not have sufficient information to use the dominance principle. Therefore, the dominance principal is not a valid logical path to take in this problem.

[@ImTheMarchetti]

This channel hasn’t posted anything in two years... such a loss!

[@fgstech4857]

This was the comment I was searching for today. They have 40k + subscribers too!!!

[@dzidkapl]

That's so sad. This channel had a potential.

[@O2RiDeR_]

Yeah feels bad I had subbed to them 1.5 years back and I suddenly got this vid recommended to me today

[@AgentOccam]

Yeah, I've just recently discovered them and watched a few of his vids and they're good. I really like it and their simple, clear style of presentation. Maybe they had health problems or a job change that caused a hiatus, and they'll come back.

[@aditya234567]

Yea right

[@drfoxcourt]

The puzzle starts with the assumption that the computer will get your strategy correct every time. It seems clear to me that you should pick only the 2nd box. A more interesting math problem is: At what point is the supercomputer's predictability of your choice cause you to change the best strategy to choosing both boxes.

[@WizDaPenguin]

50.05%

[@richardhuang8267]

... This isn't a paradox. There are only 4 possible scenarios: 1: Box 2 is empty and the computer is right 2: Box 2 is full and the computer is right 3: Box 2 is empty and the computer is wrong 4: Box 2 is full and the computer is wrong However, since the computer has NEVER BEEN WRONG, it should be safe to assume that possibilities 3 and 4 are improbable. That leaves just possibilities 1 and 2. 1 will give you £1000 while 2 will give you £1000000. So why would anyone select the first scenario (taking both box 1 and 2)? That would be like putting a guaranteed £1000000 on the line for the unlikely possibility that a supercomputer is wrong, when all you can hope to gain is a meager £1000...it just doesn't make sense. Yes, you would gain £1001000 if scenario 4 comes to pass. But given the track record of the supercomputer, scenario 2 would be infinitely more likely and you would essentially get as much money Take box 2 and you can't go wrong

[@michaelb3581]

Well said 👏🏼

[@michaelmccarty1327]

The money is either already in the box or it isn't. You risk being the first man who proved the computer wrong, and losing out on a thousand pounds. If the computer thinks you would only pick box B and you surprise it, you get a bunch of money. If the computer thinks you will pick both boxes and you surprise it, you lose a bunch of money. Your actions after the money has been placed no longer have any bearing on how much money will be placed. The only reason to pick only one box is to attempt to surprise the robot and ruin its record for future contestants. Assuming the robot guesses that we are all really logical or perhaps simply greedy, it will usually predict that we will pick both boxes, and thus be obligated to keep box B empty. Picking box B alone and seeing no money will be a financial loss, but a moral victory, proving robots are not that smart. It would also prove you are not very smart either since now you have no money, but still.

[@Pumbear]

@@michaelmccarty1327 Except there have been previous winners. And considering the 54/46 split in favor of box 2 it turns out the super computer actually puts in a million pounds more than 50% the time. With the important detail that it only did for the people that then actually ended up picking box 2. So you might call those people not very smart, but they are now millionaires, while you have a 1000 bucks. Realistically it's unlikely a supercomputer could ever predict your action with 100% accuracy, but within this hypothetical it has a track record of doing exactly that. Whatever deterministic calculations it uses have apparently predicted the line of reasoning you were going to follow. Therefore it's best to just go along with it.

[@RapperRank]

@@michaelmccarty1327 yeah like i think this is obviously more of a moral dilemma than a scientific one, you just assume the computer is never wrong, your thought process makes sense, it really does don't get me wrong, but the SUPERCOMPUTER knew you were gonna thought those thoughts and pre thought them before you thought them so either way you lose. Don't be so thoughtless next time and like Donald Trump you too might get a small loan of a million dollars.

[@ChibiRuah]

Let’s say right before confirming just taking box two, you can “take a peak” if you like. Do you? Would it change your answer at all to know? If you take a look or it wouldn’t change anything. What happens if you see it’s empty? Do you really take an empty box when box 1 has a sizable chunk of change? If you peak and it still has the million, then you know you can also take box 1 as box two is now fix. In both cases, you take both boxes as you know the result no matter what and it’s just fixed. So dis peaking and knowing the computer answer change the result? To me the issue is, does your choice in the present change how the computer answers in the past? If hard yes (even with peaking), you take box two only even if it’s empty or full with peaking which feels illogical to me. If hard no (without peaking), then you always pick both as it’s all the money in the room and you can’t make more money in the room as time travel is not a thing (though it feels illogical to me as the computer is never wrong so you should be able to influence the results with being truthful to an evaluation strategy). If soft yes (peaking changes the results), you want to pick box two but never peak, as peaking would verify the results and you could always take box 1. In this case knowing is bad which feels illogical as the computer always knows what you will pick so peaking should do nothing as you should know what’s inside but verifying it has change the results and your answer (even though you should know you and the computer choose the same)

[@iammrbeat]

WHAT'S IN THE BOX?!?

[@user-cl6jp5vj1g]

Schrodinger's cat

[@marloufatjesus3695]

7

[@JesseMProductions]

House

[@1984RD]

I took a souvenir... her pretty head.

[@cookies1491]

Deez nuts

[@thequantaleaper]

Box 2, I don't get the conflict. If you pick box 2 and it's empty... the game is rigged.

[@gregoryleen2352]

Apparently the supercomputer only has 90% accuracy with predictions. So there's a 10% chance it predicts you'll open both boxes therefore making box 2 empty. If you open box 2 and it's empty the supercomputer guessed incorrectly.

[@panta_rhei.26]

@@gregoryleen2352 he stated when he was explaining the original problem that the computer has done the test hundreds of times and has never been wrong, and if you pick box 2 it will almost certainly have a million dollars in it. Maybe I'm missing something but i dont see any reason to go with both boxes since you'll "almost certainly" end up with only 1000 dollars.

[@Matilohn]

Hopplar The computer has performed this same task many times before. Almost 50% chose to open both boxes. Those 50% screwed us all (the other 50%) over! We could all be rich by now, but noooooooo! You just had to earn £1000 more, didn’t you??? You sneaky, cheap people! When I open my box 2 and there’s nothing in it, the company will probably just laugh in my face cause they are now not sue-able because of the egotistical people opening both boxes!! Hopplar, we got to do something!! Only we have the power to overcome the odds and make the right decisions to ensure everyone gets £1.000.000!!! We’ll save everyone!!!! Nyaa- NYAAAHAHAHHAA!!! ... Hmm-hmmm, sorry. Got a little emotional... What were we talking about?

[@Nuclearburrit0]

@@Matilohn something about cats I think

[@Slava-om1sz]

Same here. I think the author is a bit confused.

[@saelaird]

I'm a one-boxer, that supercomputer got me all like predicted and shit!!

[@aztralsea]

Shrodingers cat says that you should take just box two. If the computer is, as it says, 100% accurate then box two’s contents will change depending on your choice.

[@docbrown2045]

I'd open only Box 2. Then it's either "I'm rich!" or "I don't need your stupid charity!"

[@tomlxyz]

That's quite an opportunistic argumentation. 1000 is charity you don't need but a million you're okay with?

[@DoomerMusic69]

@@tomlxyz That 1000 dollars is also kinda like free money anyway since it is just sitting right in front of you and you can see it clearly in the first box. Regardless of whether you accept it or not. So in a way, this feels like a donation/charity from the super computer. The reason why that 1M is not charity is that when it comes to charity, there is no risk of you losing it, you basically get it for free. In this situation, we can see that there are risks involved if you choose box 2 only. It is either you win them all or lose it all. However, if you choose to open both boxes, you will be ending up 1000 dollars richer regardless of the outcomes. So you don't lose. Therefore, no risks of you losing your chance of free money, you will win 1k at the end of the day.

[@mrburgermaster]

Well, even if the computer is 90% accurate, I would have a 90% chance at 1,000,000. Given the 90% accuracy, I would only have a 10% chance at 1,001,000. That's why I chose box 2.

[@rdxt2474]

But what if it predicted you're gonna choose both? U don't know what's in there before it's been predicted

[@az456az]

If you would choose box 2, then why not choose both boxes and get a free $1000? I think the $ amount for this question is skewed as some people might go "well $1000 is nothing compared to $1 million" but the point is that if you would go box 2, you could go both boxes and get free money. I think something like $10,000 for box 2 would be better

[@googlewolly]

@@az456az Because the supercomputer knows that you'd do that. At least based on the wording in the video, you can't trick it; it never makes a mistake.

[@fica1137]

@@googlewolly then if it predicts you will open both but you don't you are out of luck

[@googlewolly]

@@fica1137 That would never happen, though, as it is never wrong. It always guesses correctly.

[@Ace-dc1yz]

You could argue that the whole "opening both just in case" is what caused one of the boxes to be empty to begin with, following the purposes of the prediction element, regardless of whether it was noticed or not by the friend, the final choice is what to look at as the influencing factor under that assumption. I think the thought process is that if something "WILL" happen, and it is destined, then you follow that since the risk/reward or "COULD HAVES" don't matter for a situation that is guarenteed to be irrelavant, so you would go with only box 2. But since it's just a mere computer with no divine foresight, then anything "COULD" still happen, so the risk/reward of the both boxes choice would be the way to go to cover all bases, since your choice wasn't the actual direct influence of the outcome, the prediction itself was, so you let the chips fall where they may.

[@Elyzeon.]

think of it as time travel, someone watches what you choose and goes back in time and then puts in the money or not based on your choice. Your choice directly affects how much money there is, if you think you can beat this prediction you are either arrogant or stupid.

[@superluigidummy]

if the supercomputer is 100% accurate, no matter what you do, what it predicts will happen.

[@JerryN7970]

I would just take both boxes! That way whether or not box 2 is empty or filled with money, you’re still walking away with more money than before you played the game!

[@gremlin8635]

Take only box 1 'cause if you take box 2 and it has that much money in it your entire family will ask you for "spare change" and you will end up with less money than you began with

[@tunatuna9248]

can i shake box two before making my decision to see if theres anything in it?

[@fuad000100]

Lmao

[@Seeedyyy]

I think it depends on the decision time by the super computer. If he decides before you, then when you decide the money is already fixed and you should take both boxes. If you decide first, you should, if it influences the super computer‘s decision, take one box. if it does not influence its decision, take both.

[@WizDaPenguin]

What if the computer predicts you will try to outsmart it?

[@kroppyer]

I'm going to try to be a "box 2"-kinda guy from now on so that the supercomputer predicts that I'm taking box 2 and puts a million dollars in there. If the moment actually comes that I need to make the decision, and only then, I will change my mind. No... dang it.. I *won't* change my mind. I'll pick box 2. Really! ... Ooh, I'm jealous of those hard-core box 2 choosers...

[@becauseimapotato7599]

Yeah the computer will be all like, nah this duds lying, and no money for you

[@realityjester3325]

yeah I want to be as easily predictable as possible, 100% sure in my decision to pick box 2

[@redpepper74]

Reality Jester But then how will you change your mind if the computer has already determined you won’t?

[@kroppyer]

@@redpepper74 That doesn't seem like a big problem. He might lose out on a 1000$, but considering he's walking away with a million, who cares? I suppose actually picking box 2 may be the safest choice: you're predictable, and that additional 1000$ you could get by tricking the super computer isn't worth the risk. See, I'm getting pretty good at convincing myself to pick box 2 and tricking the supercomputer into thinking that I ... *shit* I'm going to be the only guy that walks away with nothing even though the setup basically guarantees that you'll get at least a 1000$

[@realityjester3325]

@@redpepper74 idk if w're going to agree on this pepper, but it doesn't even matter. I love you, I have this overwhelming feeling of love for mankind and a sorrow that i couldnt contribute much. I hope you feel loved

[@ML-cb4ti]

Rather have a chance at winning 1 million than a guaranteed 1000, since 1000 won't really change most people's lives significantly anyways.

[@xsamsungg5735]

But the computer has already made its choice. You suddenly thinking, "I'll only go for box 2" won't change its desicion. The 90% accuracy is due to accurate caculations the computer has made based on your psycology and way of thinking. If you go for both, you're either guaranteed $1000, or, if the computer is wrong, $1 001 000. If you only go for box 2, and the computer is mistaken in his predictions that you will go for both, you'll walk away with $0. It's key to remember that no matter what you do, it has already made its desicion, and if your rationale is the same as mine, chances are the computer will predict this as well and leave $0 in box 2. Regardless, if you'd then only go for box 2, you won't make a dollar off it.

[@screwinglogic4564]

theheroinfather but the computer no doubt calculates outcomes per person, it could probably guess if you’re trying to trick it or not meaning it would put nothing in the box

[@xsamsungg5735]

@@screwinglogic4564 Yes, but you have to remember regardless of what you do, it has already made its desicion. When it comes to making the actual choice, after the computer has made its predictions, it doesn't matter what you pick because the computer cannon change its desicion. So why not go for both

[@screwinglogic4564]

theheroinfather because we assume it’s never wrong, so if you come in assuming you’ll be able to trick the computer it’ll guess that and screw you over,

[@xsamsungg5735]

@@screwinglogic4564 So I suppose it has already been decided based on your psycology. It is very difficult to change your subconscious mind into a different way of thinking. If I come in only thinking about doing just box 2, but deep down I know I'll go for both because that means more money, then the computer will predict this and leave me $0.

[@Ihadtochooseaname]

I used to be a two-boxer, but here's a good argument for taking only box 2: One of two things will happen- either you get 1,000,000$ or you proved that the supercomputer was wrong, and can then complain to the administrator of this "paradox" that he misled you.

[@bestaround3323]

Damn

[@EvilDogFilmsOfficial]

Ok Karen

[@cardmaster8772]

I have never understood the two-boxers. Thats like basically taking 1000 dollars instead of 1mln.

[@boass]

Card Master Okay let me explain how I’m looking at it. A supercomputer with unknown but very good accuracy has already predicted which box or boxes I’m gonna choose. It may look like you’re choosing between $1,000 and $1,000,000 but what if I put the scenario in perspective. This is basically like gambling. We will always get $1,000 if we choose both. So imagine you have $1,000 in your hand and there is a slot machine that can offer $1,000,000 for your $1,000. However it is extremely unlikely to happen as the slot machine has predicted whether you play or not. Do you waste $1,000 just for a very unlikely chance at $1,000,000? If so why don’t you go to the casino and start playing slots in real life, you would likely have a better chance at winning that than you would a super computer. See where I’m coming from? You’re basically gambling $1,000 for an unlikely chance at $1,000,000.....

[@ZOMGILOST]

@@boass I wouldn't even waste time playing real slots if I have a sure way of getting 1 million.

[@MrAdamMcFarlan]

Poker players would pick the second box all day for the expected value. 😉

[@nickzardiashvili624]

Isn't one of the problems here that the 100% correct prediction of the computer is made known to me, thus altering my decision? The computer considers all the possible factors and makes its prediction. Then a new factor is added to the equation: me being aware of that prediction. The computer was not given this information and thus could not have included it in its calculations. If this fact is made known to the computer it can then generate a new 100% accurate prediction. But if that second prediction is made known to me than we're back to square 1 and thus ad infinitum?

[@peacethrucombat11]

One of the factors, we could safely assume, is that you are aware of the rate. Thus it retains it's perfect score.

[@TKsinkanal]

4:48 Schrødinger: Are u sure about that.

[@Hayze27]

TKsinkanal 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@shumbathkumar8656]

Schrodinger's cat theory only works when no one was watching what's inside the box. Not a single photon should hit the inside of box. For this case his friend already watching what's inside the box so Schrodinger's cat theory won't apply for it.

[@r_se]

@@shumbathkumar8656 the inside of the box must be isolated from interacting with the environment around it, and because the walls of the box which interact with the money interacts with the environment around it, the money isn't in a superstate of being both present and not, unless the box is somehow totally isolated from any quantum decoherence with the outside, therefore making it impossible to determine the amount of money.

[@andreykashin1729]

I think the question is too easy for the choice to be anything but box 2. Now if you said that box 1 has £500,000, then the choice would be very difficult indeed. The problem with the original premise is greed for a too small amount: Because the pain of missing out on an extra £900,000 when choosing choosing both boxes and only getting £1000 far outweighs the joy of winning £1,001,000, I would absolutely take box 2 and the guaranteed £1,000,000. Afterall, even if you chose both and won €1,001,000, then the extra £1000 won't feel like much at all. So unless you are 100% convinced of your decision thinking you have proved that you are outsmarting the computer, sure take both boxes. But if you have ANY tiny bit of doubt, then take box 2. Why? Because the box 2 option is the choice that is obviously easier to have no doubts about. It's a guaranteed £1,000,000! 2 boxes is only guaranteed £1000, and the other million is not necessarily guaranteed. But if the premise had £500,000 in box one, many would mathematically deduce it is worth the risk to go for £1.5 million rather than just getting £1 million. While many others would still prefer the safer route of choosing £1,000,000 avoiding the risk of only winning £500,000.

[@croutendo2050]

I don't see how this is a paradox. You're decision is made for you: choose box 2 or you won't get the million dollars.

[@JayDee-xj9lu]

My brain hurts.

[@wwerules000]

Choose box one, you know there's money in there, you don't need to take a chance on box 2, if the computer predicted wrong then you have money anyway

[@khacthinhnguyen17]

You don't get the question. The moment you choose the box, the money is already there, so there is no risk of taking 2 boxes.

[@croutendo2050]

@@khacthinhnguyen17 If you think that way then the supercomputer will have surely predicted that thought pattern and you'll only get 1000

[@thesos320]

@@croutendo2050 I know right? It's stated within the problem that it (the supercomputer) is never wrong so the problem depends on the person. I know for sure, 100% i would choose box 2, and therefore would 100% get the mil.

[@kukoabsalon5962]

So I have a question would we be able to pre touch and just check the wait or only randomly choose, but my answer wouldn’t change either way I would chose to pick both

[@tobe.moemeka]

If the computer has 90 percent or above accuracy then you take 1 box and based on the info we were given we can assume that it has above 90 percent accuracy so 1 box is always the play.

[@VTown1989]

0:23 It says the computer is able to predict with "unerring" accuracy. And if the computer predicts I will open BOTH boxes, and I do... I will NOT get the Million. But if it predicts I pick ONLY box 2, and I do, I WILL get the Million. So since the computer is almost always accurate... picking ONLY box 2 would have the best odds of getting the Million, since the other choice requires the computer guess wrong (which it never has before) in order to get the Million. _ This line of thinking assumes I don't care about the Thousand in this situation, since it's not life altering (It's two months rent at best), and am fully committed to getting that Million even if I miss out on the Thousand.

[@johnalanelson]

Two problems #1just because the computer has been right a few hundred times doesn't mean it will be right this time. #2 The prediction has already been made and the money was either placed in box 2 or it was not. The decision you make now does *not* impact the past, it is superstitious to think otherwise,

[@daggern15]

@@johnalanelson So by this logic. picking both boxes is the best course of action since you will definitely get a least a grand, correct? Some people would be perfectly happy with winning 1000. However, that option being a 100% prize rate, surely more people would choose that option which makes it so the machine would be more prone to making that prediction, no? The other dilemma is that if you manage to beat the machine's prediction and go for the second box, you get nothing anyway. Is the machine's objective to make an impartial prediction or to make a prediction based on not wishing to pay out? If it's the latter then it's got a 50% chance of never paying a penny by always predicting the the player will pick both whereas it's got a 50% chance of paying out a million if it predicts the second box being chosen.

[@peacethrucombat11]

@@daggern15 I would say based on that logic, 50/50 if trying to not pay out vs impartiality, the machine is completely impartial. It has never been wrong up to this point.

[@peacethrucombat11]

@@johnalanelson I would argue it is just as superstitious to go against the machine, it has yet to fail. What would make you believe that you could beat it? It kinda of gives me vibes of people who try to cheat death, they can't, it will always be happen in the end and the machine has always been correct. Which I think leads to the true crux of the issue, we as humans believe that we can outwit or overcome the absolute... Man this question really got me thinking! Honestly I'd love to hear what others believe!

[@becauseimapotato7599]

@@johnalanelson1# Yeah but unerring accuracy implies that it will always be accurate, no matter what. 2# It's not superstitious, it's just that the computer always predicts correct, so if you take both, nothing will have already been placed inside, although if you take 1 there is 100% chance that money will be in there.

[@ives6622]

I'll just take box one, large amount of money overwhelm me

[@averin1745]

This ultimately depends on when you are even made aware of your ability to choose. If the computer has already made a decision *before* you even learned of this entire paradox, your current choice does not matter as it was based off a "different" you: One who's actions were already predicted and thus set in stone. If the supercomputer makes it's decision *after* it has made you aware of the rules, whatever action you choose with likely match the outcome it predicted. Thus picking the second box is the logical option.

[@xirenzhang9126]

Why can the computer not predict what you will choose before your knowledge of this paradox? It can very possibly use your genetics, brain size, personality, past decisions, iq, and other stuffs like whether you are a logical thinker to predict your choice?

[@averin1745]

@@xirenzhang9126 Honestly this problem is a mess of interpretation. I assume the mechanics of how it predicts you doesn't matter for the problem. I was simply stating that if the computer's decision was made before you were even aware this entire situation would happen, this current you now aware of the "paradox" should choose both boxes as the present can't affect the past.

[@Creshex8]

@@averin1745 No, this is why people are so confused over what has no real confusion. Your choices, regardless of when the computer predicts what you will do, are already set in stone. There is no “imaginary you” whose choices have no bearing bearing on what future you choose. There are no multiple futures, only one future set in stone. Everything in the past was once a future event that hadn’t happened yet. Since there is only one past, there is also only one future. Whatever version of free will or choice you believe has no ability to change this.

[@marc-andredery9807]

The best way to approche the problem is when the computer has made his choice, you take a coin and flip it. Face both boxe, tail boxe 2. This way you get a 50/50 chance on getting a million. Since you cannot trust your thinking process ( the computer has already predict your choice) you need hasard to help you

[@michaelmccarty1327]

I like your thinking. I'd take my coin from box two and say "Oops!"

[@kamatikos]

Maybe I don't understand the scenario, but it seems to me like I'm being asked if I want either $1M or $1K. If the supercomputer truly can predict what I will choose every time, it's effectively the same as if there was another person that makes the prediction in place of the super computer, but I've already told them what I will pick before I actually pick.

[@AndrewBirdd]

Yes, you and many others don't quite understand the paradox :) it's a great video so i won't try to explain it any better, just watch it two more times!

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

So your saying that you will walk away with a million every time? That makes no sense your essentially stating your going to outsmart a super computer and sense more then 50% of people pick only box two it would be most likely to guess that anyway

[@kritav1111]

@@AndrewBirdd It would be better to explain it yourself rather than telling someone that watch the video

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

ACEndor well I thought if it predicted you would open box 2 that it would take all the money out the only reason to pick both boxes would be if the prediction chance is 50% this whole paradox is boring and uninteresting

[@johndoef5962]

@ACEndor but why? Isn't that a wrong or invalid conclusion? Yes, all data might point to that belief, but it is no proof, right?

[@Cuttheheadjojo]

What if I just don't chose? What if I toss a coin, head or tail ? If it's a random choice do I maximise m'y chances? My head IS melting right now

[@matejathos3645]

Computer can also predicts how you will toss a coin and its result...

[@gabesmith9171]

I wouldn’t pick either. I would just start doing jumping jacks and watch the computer explode

[@tomlxyz]

What if you make your decision based on a purely random event? I'd say roll a dice but that may be calculatable

[@eneco3965]

There's no way you can fit 1M in a box that small

[@Sanity016]

Not in cash... maybe it's a million dollars in diamonds

[@DefenestrateYourself]

It’s bitcoin. Easy.

[@hocus2591]

They put a pinch of star dust in the box

[@joep2999]

Largest denomination in England is the 50 pound note 10 notes is about 1mm thick, and the note is 156mm x 85 mm (1 million / 50) * 0.1mm * 156 mm * 85 mm = 26.52 litres To make a box that would fit 26.52 litres, it'd only need to be about 30cm long, wide and tall. I think the boxes in the video look big enough, the real question is what's up with the money in the boxes, it's comically thick.

[@josephhurley3314]

@@joep2999 I think it was supposed to be a stack of notes as opposed to just the one, that's why it's real thick

[@joesrandomcastings7826]

If I chose only box two, the computer would have already guessed it, since it is so accurate.

[@mohannd1234]

Listen carefully to instructions, there are 2 things: *choose* & *open*. Supercomputer will predict only if you *open* box. So, you can *choose* both boxes but *open only second box*. But, if choosing same as opening, then it's an adventure.. and I would like to take the risk to open only the second box.

[@manishjaggarwal]

Can you start making more videos on such interesting stuffs. I just watched all videos of this channels and liked them. It looks there has been no recent videos on this channel. The last one shows 2 years ago.

[@Otter_793]

this channel is dead

[@thelegendaryfk7922]

So how much longer do we have to wait for this perfect supercomputer to come because I want to be prepared

[@deltamico]

Could say one year, coud say no more, could say eternity, but coud say you don't have to.

[@ZlideFX]

If the supercomputer can predict your decision and is always correct (as stated in the video), that means that your decision is not made in the instance you open the boxes. Your decision has to be 100% depended on the past. The supercomputer can predict how you will think about the problem. Therefore you can only win the million dollars if you only open the second box, but that decision is not a product of your free choice, it was already determined by all your experiences and the events that lead to this exact moment. A supercomputer that can accurately predict your decision, contradicts free will! On the other hand: if you believe in free will and you believe that it is really your free choice, which boxes you open, that means such a supercomputer can't exist, because it wouldn't be able to predict your decision.

[@garrettnicewonger7178]

Damn I thought I was a one-boxer but by the end of that video you might have convinced me to switch sides. Such a neat paradox.

[@shruggzdastr8-facedclown]

This is like a combination of the Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment and the Prisoners' Dilemma

[@user-ii9ig7vq1e]

No, no it’s not

[@shentser01]

And Se7en

[@michaelhoste_]

Not exactly. Or more accurately, it’s exactly not.

[@Elyzeon.]

It kinda is more schrondihhssjdingdongers cat than prisoners dilemma but I get what you mean

[@ujjawalsingh4628]

Tell that to jonas kahnwald

[@Zotrax1946]

Paradox?? Oh no no no..there’s a choice here. Where is the “Paradoxical” part?

[@lettersnnums]

Well, there is a little one, because if the computer knows how you'll choose, you should always take both, because if it knows in advance that you'll choose box 2, you should last moment change your decision to get 1,001,000 instead of 1,000,000. Still the best bet is always to go only for box2.

[@AgentOccam]

How does the definition of paradox *not* apply here? www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox

[@michaelhoste_]

Evgenij Kruse But the computer would predict your ‘last minute change of mind’ - it just predicts what you DO.

[@michaelhoste_]

Stephen Parkes According to the premise, the (4) solutions aren’t contradictory, they’re just different. Nor can any of them be derived from contradictory premises. So why IS it a paradox ?

[@Elyzeon.]

The paradox comes from time itself, how can the future affect the present? A lot of people have trouble with the fact that the money is put in the boxes before you choose

[@iphu3niax]

I'd flip a coin. The computer can't predict random chance.

[@apani7348]

Clever.

[@Zoltoks]

What about the gambler who just chooses one or the other without thought. Or randomly chooses depending on non predictable outcomes?

[@patrickhackett7881]

It shows that the AI cannot be 100% accurate unless no one chooses randomly. I'd still pick Box 2 if it was very accurate in previous experiments.

[@thebashfulturtle9987]

This scenario is interesting because it is impossible. I could very well flip a coin and go with whatever the coin said and the supercomputer would be impossibly right. Because the computer is 100% accurate (impossible) I would go with just box 2...

[@abdisaleh6472]

Flipping the coin does sound like it adds complexity to the puzzle, but really all your doing is cutting your chances by half. I would go with box 2 simple because all logic and calculations aside, my mental being wouldn't handle the possibility of losing 1 million ponds; losing 1k isn't as big of a deal.

[@suryakiran641]

Well I still believe there is only one answer. Let's dissect the scenario: 1)You decide your pic. 2) Supercomputer predicts your pic(given previous predictions have 💯% accuracy). 3)You pic the two boxes either by changing your decision or by pre determined pic. It's in STEP 3 where the problem lies. If you were going to change your decision/choose the same decision as of step 1 couldn't the computer have already predicted THAT TOO (in previous attempts it has shown 💯% accuracy). Answer: The whole situation could be solved from the given date that: THE SUPER COMPUTER NEVER HAVE BEEN WRONG and it's highly unlikely it's going to change on your attempt.

[@hughkinsey3562]

The most interesting part of this is the survey info included: essentially 50/50 people picking 1 or both boxes. The super computer doesn’t need to do a mathematical calculation: it is 100% accurately deciphering individuals thought process/personality/psychology to know what their choice will be. This is why there is no “right or wrong” answer.

[@redpepper74]

Hugh Kinsey There is a right answer to the question though: take the £1,000,000. There’s no way of taking all the money without the computer predicting it, which means that there’s no way of taking it all in any case.

[@socialengineer1441]

How did the supercomputer predict with unerring accuracy, accuracy backed up by 100s of predictions what my choice will be before I have have chosen.. which is it unerring or 90%? If you believe in the impossible then anything is possible.

[@gydorack]

You could always trick the computer's perfect predictions, since it can only predict your own decision making process. If you decide to use a random process such as a coin flip or dice roll. You can choose based on that outcome and always have a 50% chance of getting the million.

[@miranda92051]

no thats not true, you have no idea how it is predicting your decision

[@viscachamusic8824]

This would be better if box 1 had 25k and box 2 had 50k The way it is here, it simply isn’t worth it to risk a million for another measly thousand on top

[@screwinglogic4564]

It’s less about the numbers and more about the actual strategy behind it but I like your thinking

[@cernolgluestick5561]

@@screwinglogic4564 that is exactly the stratagy though, its made where you risk the million for an extra one thousand, but if people wasnt greedy and saw it as a choice between the 2 instead of trying for both, then the million is gaurenteed

[@harryc5661]

So maybe this is less of a paradox, but more of an argument against the possibility that there could ever be a super computer which could predict the future with unerring accuracy?

[@cylenc405]

Or more practically, doesn't this argue against the existence of an omniscient God?

[@andrewdeighton5926]

@@cylenc405 well yes you say omniscient, but if omnipotent the God could of course change what is there - if The God is only Omniscient, but has to obey the laws of the universe, then it implies that the player cannot have free will, and will only do what the God knows already/

[@cylenc405]

@@andrewdeighton5926 I'm not familiar with other religions, but I know the Bible says that God has predestined us (for heaven or hell). I think that situation is analogous to the paradox.

[@wurttmapper2200]

@@cylenc405 Not all Christians think that, only Calvinists

[@wurttmapper2200]

Or maybe it proves free will isn't a thing

[@ChrisRyot]

"You might think that the answer is obvious." Yea, that's EXACTLY what I was thinking...

[@crashbandicoot2383]

I did not understand a thing , the choice is to choose either box 2 or both box ? Or either box 1 or box 2 ?

[@ryanjones7681]

A million pounds sounds a bit heavy to take home....

[@jtqbr]

There is essentially one big question in this situation. Does the choice you make affect what the computer did? In my opinion, because it is a super computer and already has seen into the future, then yes, the choice you make is already known by the computer and so the result in the box will be what is predicted by the computer no matter what. Ultimately, you are choosing your destiny, and the computer knows what your ultimate pick would be so the results in the boxes will be correct no matter what.

[@PoeLemic]

To me, it wasn't clear if the Super Computer told you ahead of time what it had predicted, because (for me) that would influence how I which boxes I would open. So, do you know SC's choice ahead of time. I wish someone would let me know. Thanks.

[@duukvanleeuwen2293]

Conclusion: Supercomputers that can predict things with certainty, can't exist.

[@brandib2821]

We’re living in a simulation my bud

[@xamnition]

Is this really so complicated? Isn't the question the following: Do you trust the computer? And if the accuracy is 90%, then you should trust it. Where is the paradox?

[@calvinchao1507]

XamN most paradox are dumb, they just make something simple into a word game

[@coviantlynch6913]

Because whether there is 1 million in box 2 is already determined. Therefore you will always get 1 thousand extra by opening both boxes. Watch the observer example in the video. If there was a million in box 2 or not you'd always want your friend to open both boxes.

[@troppur7355]

coviant lynch it says in the beginning the predictor is 100% accuracy with 100s of tries. This logic is dumb.

[@xamnition]

@@coviantlynch6913 If you were able to tell your friend what to choose it would be like playing rock paper scissors so that the computer plays first and you play after you see what the computer chose. No paradox here either.

[@coviantlynch6913]

@TroppuR But im not arguing against the 'dominance principle' Im arguing that both the 'Dominance principle' and the Expected utility principle' can be thought of as absolutes. The fact they contradict each other is why there is a paradox. @XamN But what exactly are you going to tell your friend? After the computer has made its decision you cant change if there is a million in box 2 or not so its not like you can gain an advantage from the knowledge of what the computer has chosen. The fact that you only stand to gain 1000 from box 1 does skew the argument somewhat. You could imagine it as follows: Computer makes its choice, money is determined. Now you have to pick. Well obviously you should open both as that maximises your return. Or like this: Computer is always right so if I open both boxes I will always only win 1000. Both of which are logical and contradictory, hence the paradox. Maybe what youre proving is such a computer cannot exist.

[@calebwitts1232]

I'm definitely going to only pick the second box. Then I grab both.

[@roger2121271]

04:30 : I feel like this case is much less paradoxical than the previous ones. I think it's fair to take the assumption that the people will follow their friend's advice, which will always be to open the two boxes since they see their conent. So the algorithm should only predict two boxers and never put the money in the second box.

[@andrewx8888]

Just take the two boxes, and if the computer is wrong, counter claim that it is faulty as it's prediction was wrong. Either way it's a win win

[@shupetchu]

i will always say both boxes, i listened and understood the video and i read alot of the comments but if this was me in front of the box id always choose both

[@SxVx55]

The computer predicts this and you receive £1000

[@jamaass]

Aaand you just lost one 1M

[@hastyalex9385]

Ima shove the computer up my ass. See if it will predict that.

[@godwhy1845]

One box. If the computer REALLY can predict the future then it’ll predict what you’ll do.

[@hakkihantunbak6340]

This might sound confusing but read it slowly: If the machine can really predict the future, it will predict that you’ll believe it can see the future, so therefore it will predict that you’ll try to outsmart it (because which human wouldn’t want 1000 extra!)

[@user-un8jx8yo7z]

@@hakkihantunbak6340 That goes against the premise. The computer puts in 1000 total when they predict you will pick both.

[@hakkihantunbak6340]

C you didn’t read slowly enough

[@Hecticatia]

I’m happy either way, both amounts of money are pretty good

[@Joshhh.c]

hope this guy comes back, I started ti really like his content

[@kingpin6989]

Here's my thing, I'd only open box two. The reason being I can live with losing 1,000 pounds because I chose wrong, but I can't live with knowing I gave up 999,000 pounds.

[@richardcook6505]

TheGr8stManEvr Your math is a bit off. Or you didn’t pay attention.

[@deitieofall6634]

Bahahahaha. Dam I wanted to tell 'thegr8estmanevr' that he needs to check his hearing... And eyes... And math skills. Gr8estest at what?? Not paying attention?

[@Riley29980]

Whatever you pick the computer knew you were going to choose that so always pick 1 box. If you think you can outsmart it, it knew you would try that. If you do the math, it knew you would do that.

[@itchyrichy]

I don’t get it if the supercomputer has been right 100% of the time wouldn’t it be obvious to take only one box? Since it’s very likely that the supercomputer will correctly predict your choice?

[@mustafam3285]

It’s virtually impossible to predict the actions of the person choosing. If I walk in and decide to base my decision on the outcome of the coin toss, does the probability of their being only $1,000,000 in Box 2 change to 50%? Does the computer predict that I’m going to do this and take it into account before I’ve even entered the room?

[@geminirox8635]

You can't set up a hypothetical and then assume the hypothetical you already described may be wrong. If the computer can predict your choices then you always pick box 2 only..

[@geminirox8635]

@@cromi4194 that's not the hypothetical given

[@user-nk1om2tr4y]

By opening both boxes when the million is in box 2 would throw an exception and the super computer would stop

[@dinkleberg794]

Edin Lo6 Segmentation fault (core dumped)

[@Imamotherfreakingavocado]

Dude if the supercomputer is always right, I'd just get the 2nd box. I trust an AI more than my own reasoning.

[@trishansadhukhan2680]

4:50 Superposition: "Am I joke to you?"

[@Feroxing12]

details are important. if the pribability is 50:50 than supercomputer cant always do this choice and he is not deciding randomly. this might make people believe its deciding somehow that id does not give you the big reward even though it simulated whatever. id still chose one box because the chance of winning million is of more value than 1k. but if it was 10k the choice would be very difficult and might go with two boxes

[@MrMan-vu8kz]

Feroxing12 the probability is 50 50 but other variables come to play. Maybe the supercomputer could read how you react when you look at the boxes. Maybe it can scan your heart rate when you look at them individually. I’m just saying it’s not a random guess. Plus he said the computer is right 90% of the time so that would be nearly impossible if I was focused specifically on a guess.

[@bryanaughal261]

It would be interesting to see another wrench thrown into this problem; if the prediction is wrong (IE: it thinks you will only take Box 2, and you take both, getting $1,001,000.) then you get a consolation prize for tricking the computer. $2,000,000 extra for a wrong prediction. NOW which box do you take, knowing that fooling the computer gets you extra money? (REMEMBER: IF the computer is correct, you get no consolation prize.)

[@eeveebrosstudios]

If you know about the supercomputer making a prediction that is guaranteed to never be wrong and changes the outcome then you would select box 2, if you didn’t know about the supercomputer making a prediction that is never wrong let alone that it changes the outcome based on it prediction, you would select both boxes. It all based on the extra information which invalidates certain situations and scenarios, as well as affecting the outcome with “100%” accuracy. It then becomes a question about the hypothetical scenario, as stated earlier, if you know ahead of time about the supercomputer, then you’re comparing then only possible outcome that the supercomputer will force, if you don’t know about the supercomputer before hand, then you will compare possible rewards of each situation, with a guaranteed reward always being better than a possible reward outcome of the same magnitude, it makes more sense to choose both boxes

[@eeveebrosstudios]

Thank you for coming to my Ted-Talk

[@ihatecops.]

But will it predict that I’ll just burn both boxes without opening either

[@VCardGaming]

You're so edgy and cool

[@hidazip]

What? The computer is supposed to predict your choice accurately. Why would you open both boxes. The computer already knows that and will give you an empty box 2. Where is there a paradox?

[@maisammohammadi8244]

Because inside the box doesn't change. So if there is a guaranteed $1000000 in box 2 if you pick it only, then it should still be there even if you go for box 2. Logically speaking the million dollars would still be in box 2 but would you risk it?

[@wilson0213]

The Philosocast no, because the computer KNOWS. It essentially has seen the future and knows how many boxes you will pick. It can’t be wrong, if you decide to open both boxes, you open box 1 first (see the £1000) then open the second one and see nothing, whereas if you just go for the 2nd box, it will have £1m, and empty box 1. The computer knows what you’ll open first

[@Pro-kesh]

The Philosocast if you risk it, the computer would have put $0 beforehand. It knows your atomic brain structure and what you would pick. We don’t have free will; if you pick only box two, you get &1000000. Otherwise, only $1000

[@googlewolly]

@@maisammohammadi8244 They're right. It's only a paradox if you're unintelligent. In this silly theoretical scenario, the supercomputer can never be wrong, so it'd be stupid to choose both boxes.

[@Elyzeon.]

@@googlewolly it's not a paradox if you can't see the nuance. The paradox comes from the way time works. The future affects the past which makes it paradoxical to people that can't think ok nvm I see only idiots would actually think it's a paradox