The Giant Beastcast: Episode 157

I feel the way Newcomb's problem was explained was bad. The Wikipedia explanation makes it more clear to me:

There is a predictor, a player, and two boxes designated A and B. The player is given a choice between taking only box B, or taking both boxes A and B. The player knows the following:

Box A is clear, and always contains a visible $1,000.

Box B is opaque, and its content has already been set by the predictor:

If the predictor has predicted the player will take both boxes A and B, then box B contains nothing.

If the predictor has predicted that the player will take only box B, then box B contains $1,000,000.

Not just you, the audio quality was definitely worse. The audio quality on the GBEast studio has been kinda bad for some months, the sound from their voices is clipping and doesn't have enough range.

To be honest, I'm not rolling my eyes at the ending of God of War because it's just "bad for women".

I'm rolling my eyes because it's basically the same thing as The Last of Us, and it was five years ago and we still haven't got past that.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I liked The Last of Us because I was under the impression that it was The Last of Us. Not The First of Many.

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.

Maybe 5 people on one show is too many sometimes? Wonder if Abby taking on a more Jan-like role would deliver a better product. Love the podcast, thanks.

@igrac: I don't want it to go video. I want Vinny to draw ms Paint scenes for each beastcast just like the KZ2 quick look

@golguin: They did do that on a Beastcast! I don't remember how long ago but I remember exactly where I was when I heard it lol It was within the past year, I think.

Found it! Episode 115 at about 1:35:00. Thanks to @stordoff for commenting on the premium version's page with the words "Money Hall."

I don't understand the money/box question.

Obvious answer to the computer money thing: Destroy the machine and take everything, including the machine's parts. Sell that shit.

I had not noticed until this ep, possibly because I usually listen to it in noisy environments. But this one felt unpleasant to listen to.

In regards to the box question. I would take both as I would still be that much the richer and if they told me the rules before hand, well, I wouldn't much care and still pick both and guess what? I would still be that much the richer. "Oh but you could have had this!!!" My response... "I still get more than a stick in the eye!" I'm a realist you see... a bird in the hand is a bird in the hand.

You are right I do remember now, but I remember not understanding the math behind it and just thinking that it didn't sound right. It wasn't until I saw it demonstrated in video that I saw how it actually worked.

They're just getting use to the new office.

Also, as far as the ending to God of War is concerned... Wait till you have kids and its meaning will become a lot more clear in my opinion.

I feel like it's nearly impossible to have a female character that won't rub anyone the wrong way. People like Abby and the people at Kotaku and Waypoint don't like it when something bad happens to women or they're flawed, but other people will complain that the character is a Mary Sue if she's just great at everything and can get out of any situation and has no flaws. It seems like an unwinnable situation.

I loved the ending of God of War and thought Freya was a great character. I really like how she spent the whole last fight trying to stop the fighting between Kratos and Baldur without actually trying to hurt anybody because she cared for both of them and escalating her tactics to stop the fighting when she saw it wasn't working. I thought the themes of family and parenthood, the lengths a parent will go to protect a child, and what it does to a person to lose a child were all done so well as it relates to both Kratos and Freya, that it kills me that all of that is discounted just because Freya is a woman and is shown making choices these people don't approve of her making.

I'm sure the people thinly-veiled calling Abby a feminazi sjw ruining games will be the ones to convince her that GoW's representation of women is good, because they liked it.

Glad to hear the praise for House Flipper. It's not challenging at all, and it's not a great game, but it's delightfully relaxing and calming.

Thanks for the comments about the paradox I was trying to google Nukem's problem lol.

I guess I am not seeing the newcomb's problem thing right at all. If are just told hey in the next room are 2 boxes with money do you want one or both? I am going to say both, in that case I know the predictor put 5k in each so just take both.

If I was told take one or both then another person is going to come after you and get what is left then I have some reason just to take one.

If there are no downsides (that you know of until it is too late) of taking both boxes why would you not?

I didn't. I started a new one. I'm still planning on returning to the one from the stream at some point.

Good to hear. Hoping you can get to that during the summer.

The crux to the Newcomb's Problem thing is this:

The machine is gauging what is your core intent in this situation laid before you. The way we respond to problems instantly is usually the most true to our nature. If you give anyone even a second to think about a problem the way we respond to a situation is muddied by the fact that we add all sorts of layers of "how should i respond" or "how do other people want me to respond" to influence our decision. The machine is gauging if not given any sort of outside motivation what would be your response to the boxes?

If not given the twist of the 20k you would go in the room and take two boxes then the machine already knows this and you've already lost the 20k. You cannot preemptively change the core way you would respond to an unknown problem. The question to "Well why would someone only take one box" is simple. Some people are naturally just less greedy.

So the question then sort of just ends up becoming are you just naturally just a less greedy person by nature?

@jonc151: 30fps is on consoles largely a very intentional design decision in a lot of cases. You can churn more visual power and prowess out of a game if your willing to sacrifice the frame rate. While I do think your right and we've just about tapped out what the PS4/XB1 can do this gen next gen we are still going to see 30fps games very consistently because to the average joe walking through walmart picking up a video game 60fps doesn't mean shit and consoles are usually aimed at a more casual audience.

The correct answer to Newcombe's paradox is "this is stupid".

I mean, Jeff B. is the one that doesn't actually work at GBeast and plays the least amount of games, so if anyone were going to take a step back I would say it should be him. Although, I have no issues with the current 5 people structure myself.

Christ Detroit sounds fucking miserable...

Clearly none of the other Beast-Duders have watched Metal Gear Scanlon 5.

I'm surprised that it took them that long to ask if it was a wrestler. That was my first clue when it was coming from Dan, and then when he couldn't straight-up say it was sports, I immediately thought a wrestler. Obviously it was irrelevant, but it's Dan, so that should be the number 1 assumption.

I thought the philosophy question was a troll, because I thought they were saying "Nukem" instead of Newcomb.

Who's Lisa? They said happy birthday to her and said she doesn't listen.