I don't understand the box question. The money is already in the box for the bonus so you just take both boxes. The money isn't going to vanish from the box with the correct choice. Am I missing something? I thought the whole point of the question is that if the AI put $20,000 in the box it thinks you'll choose, but you still have the option to take both boxes. You take both and get $5,000 from one box and $20,000 from the bonus box.
Yes, the money is already in the boxes, so you just decided to take both. The computer predicted you'd come to that conclusion once you were informed of that, so one of the boxes is empty.
Most of the confusion comes from a misinterpretation of when the person finds out the computer predicting/adding money and whether or not the computer takes into account of the person being informed (whether prior to making decision or even after) into its calculations. What I mean is, even if you switch your decision after it made the prediction and added (or didn't add) money, it had predicted you switching as well. The always two box decision relies on the computer not taking into account that the person may switch their decision, and it also relies on their decision having no baring on the money (always two box logic being no matter what the computer had done, two boxes will always have the most money). By that always-two-box-logic, even the person deciding to take one box should switch to two boxes once in the room. But the one-box logic peeps know that there's no tricking the computer, so don't ever actually conclude to taking two boxes, because it's actually impossible to ever attain both high amount + small amount boxes together.
So really, I think it all comes down to whether or not the computer predicts you being able to switch your answer and if it makes the prediction prior/post being informed. It's a silly thought experiment but a fun one to work through, no matter which side of the fence you fall on. I think what it really teaches is that if you don't know the exact details of the computer operation, you have to treat it as a black box, whole cloth, and consider all possibilities of how it functions, not just the possibilities of results based on your decision.
That's what I take away from it all.
Hmm, I see. I think something more fun to ask would be the Monty Hall Problem (from the gameshow) because the math behind it seems counter intuitive until you see how it pans out with more options. Someone should email them that question.
I don't understand the box question. The money is already in the box for the bonus so you just take both boxes. The money isn't going to vanish from the box with the correct choice. Am I missing something? I thought the whole point of the question is that if the AI put $20,000 in the box it thinks you'll choose, but you still have the option to take both boxes. You take both and get $5,000 from one box and $20,000 from the bonus box.
so I say that's a pretty good list. Now that I think about it I don't think I've ever matched the community voting this closely. I don't have a gaming PC, but there wasn't really a PC only breakout game.
Did my podcast skip or did they not talk about Nintendo Labo or the Minidirect with Dark Souls for the Switch? It's possible my podcast was left on for a large section when I wasn't around and I missed it. Did I miss it?
I listened to the first 30 minutes of this category and then skipped right to the end. I never realized it would be this frustrating to listen to people argue about a category I didn't understand and that half the staff misunderstood. I thought it was meant to be about "World Building" the way the term is widely understood. It ended up being something that I have trouble defining even now.
Next time it may be extremely helpful to write a small paragraph for each category (I think Jeff mentioned doing this) and adding a couple of questions that each person should consider when considering candidates. Maybe something like this.
1. Does the "World Building" feel properly fleshed out by the environment, story, lore, characters and items present in the game?
2. Does the "World Building" in the game make you want to know more about the setting and world outside of what's presented to the player?
Throughout the various GOTY discussions over the years there have been some really bad calls. A couple of years ago we had the Witcher 3 and Bloodborne snub. This year we had Persona 5. You win some you lose some.
That being said I am mostly happy with the staff pick for the top 4 games. My top 4 included...
This was a bigger travesty than the entire Best World discussion.
That's true. Every inch of Persona 5 is meticulously designed to have that "cohesive" feel that everyone seems to be talking about this week. It's unfortunate that art can't be argued the same way as other topics. You can either see why it's good or not.
golguin's comments