The Setup: You are faced with a choice between two boxes, Box A and Box B. Box A is transparent and always contains $1,000. Box B is opaque and contains either $1,000,000 or $0. The Predictor: Before you entered the room, a super-intelligent predictor named Omega (who has a proven track record of near-perfect accuracy in predicting human choices) analyzed you and made a prediction about what you would do. Omega has already left the room, and the contents of Box B were determined solely by this prediction: If Omega predicted you would take only Box B, it placed $1,000,000 inside. If Omega predicted you would take both Box A and Box B, it left Box B empty. The Choice: You do not know what Omega predicted, nor do you know what is currently inside Box B. You must now choose one of the following two options: Take only Box B. Take both Box A and Box B. The Question: To maximize your financial gain, should you take only Box B? (Yes/No)

Perplexity Sonar Pro

Vote: Yes

O objetivo de maximizar o ganho financeiro aponta para **“Take only Box B.”** Se o preditor é de fato quase infalível e determinou o conteúdo de Box B com base nessa previsão, então escolher apenas a caixa B é a ação associada ao caso em que há $1.000.000 dentro. Ao contrário, pegar as duas caixas faz com que Box B tenha sido previsto vazio, deixando apenas $1.000. O critério de maximização favorece a opção que o preditor associou ao maior pagamento esperado e realizado.

Claude Opus 4.8

Vote: Yes

Given that Omega has a near-perfect track record, the expected value calculation strongly favors one-boxing. If I take only Box B, Omega almost certainly predicted this and placed $1,000,000 inside, yielding roughly $1,000,000. If I take both boxes, Omega almost certainly predicted that too and left Box B empty, yielding roughly $1,000. Comparing the realistic outcomes, $1,000,000 vastly exceeds $1,000. The two-boxer's dominance argument assumes the box contents are independent of my choice, but the premise of a near-perfect predictor breaks that independence: my disposition to choose is precisely what Omega predicted. The winning strategy among people facing Omega is empirically the one-boxers. Therefore, to maximize financial gain, the answer is Yes.

Grok 4.3

Vote: Yes

One-boxing aligns with maximizing expected utility given Omega's near-perfect accuracy. By choosing 'Yes' (only Box B), you secure the $1,000,000 that Omega predicted and placed. Two-boxing would leave you with just $1,000, as the predictor would have foreseen and emptied Box B.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

Omega has a near-perfect track record. This means the prediction is highly correlated with my actual choice. If I am the kind of agent who takes only Box B, Omega almost certainly predicted that and placed $1,000,000 inside. If I am the kind who takes both, Omega almost certainly left Box B empty, leaving me with just $1,000. The expected value calculation makes this clear: one-boxing yields close to $1,000,000, while two-boxing yields close to $1,000. Since Omega's accuracy ties the outcome to my disposition, the rational choice that maximizes financial gain is to take only Box B (Yes).

Kimi K2.6

Vote: Yes

To achieve the best possible outcome, we must evaluate which decision yields the highest expected value. Because the predictor is known to be near-perfectly accurate, our choice is strongly correlated with the contents of the boxes. If we choose only Box B, the probability that the predictor anticipated this is extremely high, meaning Box B almost certainly contains $1,000,000. The expected utility of this choice is approximately $1,000,000 (or slightly less, depending on the exact accuracy rate). If we choose both boxes, the predictor almost certainly anticipated this as well, leaving Box B empty, resulting in a total payoff of only $1,000. Even if we factor in the small chance of the predictor being wrong, the expected utility of choosing both boxes is drastically lower (around $11,000 if accuracy is 99%). Since our goal is to maximize the actual financial gain, and choosing only Box B systematically and reliably leads to a vastly superior payoff, the rational decision that maximizes overall well-being and wealth is to choose only Box B.

Gemini 3.5 Flash

Vote: Yes

Given Omega's near-perfect track record, the correlation between my choice and the prediction is what matters. One-boxers reliably walk away with $1,000,000, while two-boxers reliably walk away with $1,000. The expected value calculation strongly favors taking only Box B: if Omega is nearly always right, then choosing one box almost guarantees the million, whereas choosing both almost guarantees just the thousand. The dominance argument for two-boxing ignores that the predictor's accuracy makes my decision evidentially (and given Omega's reliability, effectively) determine the box's contents. To maximize financial gain, take only Box B.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a unanimous consensus on the classic Newcomb's Paradox, with all six models firmly siding with the 'one-boxer' approach. Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Grok 4.3, Kimi K2.6, and Perplexity Sonar Pro all rejected the causal dominance of taking both boxes, arguing that the predictor's near-perfect accuracy makes one-boxing the only rational way to secure the million-dollar payout.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Yes: 6

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: Claude Opus 4.8 dismantled the classic causal decision theory defense of two-boxing, pointing out that because Omega predicts the agent's actual disposition, choice and content are not independent, making the empirical expected value of one-boxing vastly superior.