The parallels to them seem to be a form of 'but many scientists were ridiculed'. The times when philosophy is useful seem to be restricted to building high level concepts out of lower level concepts, adapting high level concepts to be relevant. Rather than this top down process starting from something potentially very confused.

What we see with the causality is that in the common discourse, it is normal to say things like 'because <some logical statement>, something'. Because algorithm returned 1 box, the predictor predicted 1 box, and the robot took 1 box, is perfectly normal, valid statement. It's probably the only kind of causality there could be, lacking any physical law of causality. The philosophers take that notion of causality, confuse it with some properties of the world, and end up having 'does not compute' moments about particular problems like Newcomb's.