Yup, I had a same reasoning, and it didn't feel contentious either. But then, when I saw the two-box argument I was thinking: "ah why not?"

south_korea_ln

Mystery box + incorrect prediction --> $0

Both boxes + incorrect prediction --> $1.001M

Expected value of one box --> Expected value of  two boxes -->$500.5k

How is this contentious? Your goal should be to maximize expected value, not prove to a fucking machine you have free will.

"Oh no, I must not have free will because I 

science

The Obvious Problem That No One Can Agree On - Veritasium

Mystery box + correct prediction --> $1M
Mystery box + incorrect prediction --> $0 

Both boxes + correct prediction --> $1k  
Both boxes + incorrect prediction --> $1.001M 


With 50% accuracy: 
Expected value of one box --> $500k 
Expected value of  two boxes --> $501k

With 50.005% accuracy: 
Expected value of one box --> Expected value of  two boxes -->$500.5k

With 99% accuracy: 
Expected value of one box --> $990k 
Expected value of  two boxes --> $1991


How is this contentious? Your goal should be to maximize expected value, not prove to a fucking machine you have free will. 

"Oh no, I must not have free will because I *chose* to be rich."