Newcomb's Narcissism

 Why is the predictor handing out arbitrary boxes of money?
 What does he get out of it?
 Sounds like a self-contradiction to me. A reliable predictor would reliably predict he should keep the money. The 'paradox' vanishes if we introduce rationality to the players. Otherwise: insanity is not reliable. Whoops.

 Is he giving out money because it's worthless to him? Prediction isn't worthless, it has some cost. There's no way he would bother to make the effort to achieve reliability if the money was meaningless. "In one box, there is visibly pocket lint. In the other...there might be a rusty penny." Yeah the predictor is totally going to bother to play this game straight. 

 More importantly, what does newcomb want? What does he get out of it?

 "I'm an atheist because I can't imagine my personal god as a person. It is inconceivable that he has his own desires or motivations." Good 'ol clockwork personal god.

 This is what that whole [frame] discourse is about. Whether you one-box or two-box, you're accepting that clockwork personal gods, who exist only to hand out cold hard cash for fluffy bunny unicorn reasons, are a reasonable part of practical ontology. The frame is the payload. The 'paradox' is merely bait. 

 This puzzle is not created out of curiosity and it would be stranger if it weren't inherently erroneous. Newcomb's troll box. 

 "Mommy, I don't care what you want. I have the right to your milk, hurry it up."
Nothing but very very Sophisticated mommy issues. Or congenital brain damage. 

 If you can't precommit to taking box B such that omega can safely predict you won't take both boxes, the other thing he can't do is stop you from changing your mind and picking up box A too anyway.
 Take box B as if you're only taking box B. See what's in it.
 Then, what, the money in B vanishes when you change your mind? You going to build a concrete bunker to stop anyone taking box A? What if someone takes A but, generously, gifts it to you, does that count as taking both? Do you have to refuse?
 Newcomb clearly suffered from aphantasia. Or was perhaps illiterate. Didn't know what words mean. An affliction shared by the interlocutors.

 At least the trolley problem happens in real life, in very rare cases. It's not immune to experiment.