This evening I noticed a similarity between Newcomb’s Paradox and MAD. It feels like the same problem, just with a sign change.
The player has two boxes, A and B. The player can either take only box B, or take both A and B.
The player does not know what was predicted.
Game theory says that, no matter what was predicted, you’re better off taking both boxes.
If you trust the prediction will accurately reflect your decision no matter what you decide, it’s better to only take one box.
In order to win the maximum reward, you must appear to be a one-boxer while actually being a two-boxer.
Mutually assured destruction￼
- If your opponent predicts you will not retaliate, they will launch an attack, and win
- If your opponent predicts you will retaliate, they will not launch an attack, and you survive
Game theory says you must retaliate. If your opponent attacks anyway, nuke fall, everybody dies.
In order to minimise fatalities, you must be no-retaliate, while appearing to be pro-retaliate.