This Paradox Splits Smart People 50/50

one box or both boxes

Choose one box if you believe the supercomputer's prediction is more important than your ability to influence the past. Choose both boxes if you believe your current actions are the only thing that matters. The paradox highlights the tension between evidential and causal decision theory.

• 🤔 The "one-boxer" argument relies on evidential decision theory, trusting the predictor's accuracy.
• 🚶 The "two-boxer" argument relies on causal decision theory, believing current actions can't change the past.
• 📈 Polls show a near 50/50 split, with Veritasium's audience leaning 2/3 towards one-boxing.
• 🤝 The paradox is analogous to the Prisoner's Dilemma, where individual rationality can lead to a worse collective outcome.
• 🇺 🇸 The concept of pre-commitment is crucial in game theory, seen in nuclear deterrence (MAD) and the game of chicken.

A stylized image shows a person standing between two rows of pedestals, each topped with a box, with the text "What would you do?" above.