alt Hacker News> Why would you ever take both boxes?
As near as I can tell, it boils down to this: no matter what the predictor has chosen, one you walk into that room, there's more money in both boxes, then there is in one box.
But it feels like half an analysis—focusing solely on what you decide, while ignoring the fact that the other side is deciding based on what you think they'll decide.
Maybe that's me being unfair, because I'm a solid one boxer.
I also disagree with the linked article—I don't think it matters at all how the predictor makes their decision, because the outcome really doesn't matter if it's 100% accurate or 99% accurate. Or even like, 80% accurate. There's no magic required for the experiment to work.
Even if it's 50% accurate the benefit of picking both is marginal. If it's 50% accurate and you pick both boxes, 50% of the time you get nothing, 50% of the time you get 0.1% more. So unless you know that the predictor is worse than chance, you at worst suffer a meaningless loss if you pick one box.