Newcomb's Paradox

[Objectivist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

A lot of you would know about this already. The interesting thing about this puzzle is that even though it seems like there is a very clear correct answer here, there are a lot of people who insist that's not correct ... and I'm taking philosophers, mathematicians, game theorists, and not just laypeople. So I guess that's really where the "paradox" lies.

Anyway, here's the problem to consider:

You have two boxes in front of you. Behind these two boxes is the Predictor, some super-advanced being who is (at the very least) really, really good at predicting beforehand what you would do.

Box A is transparent and contains $1000.
Box B is opaque and either contains $0 or $1000000

You have two options here:

Either choose both Box A and Box B, or
Choose Box B only

The Predictor has already predicted what option you would go for:
If they predicted you would choose both boxes, then Box B will contain $0.
If they predicted you would choose Box B only, then Box B will contain $1000000

Which option do you go for?

I suspect most of us here would choose Box B only, but it would be interesting to hear the different perspectives on this problem.

I would choose box b.  If it contains $0, I've lost nothing.  I can get $1,000 dollars easily so it would not be a loss if box b had nothing in it.  It would not be a loss in any case because I don't seek the unearned.  I'd much rather skip the whole thing and work hard and make $1,000,000 myself.  Then and only then would it have value to me.