用户想评估并改善自身的随机性

原话 · @Anonymous

This is a nice spin on the Aaronson oracle:> In a class I taught at Berkeley, I did an experiment where I wrote a simple little program that would let people type either “f” or “d” and would predict which key they were going to push next. It’s actually very easy to write a program that will make the right prediction about 70% of the time. Most people don’t really know how to type randomly. They’ll have too many alternations and so on. There will be all sorts of patterns, so you just have to build some sort of probabilistic model. Even a very crude one will do well. I couldn’t even beat my own program, knowing exactly how it worked. I challenged people to try this and the program was getting between 70% and 80% prediction rates. Then, we found one student that the program predicted exactly

原话 · @Anonymous

I really want to know who was more random than a RNG

原话 · @Anonymous

Does someone know whether people saw the "predictions" in the actual test? Because saying random numbers blindly is not what I was doing. After my next number was predicted correctly, I changed my "strategy" to increase randomness (be less predictable).So I don't know if this result is comparable to the one from the study.My results were:The house called 10 of your 87 scored numbers: 11%.Blind guessing would average about 9.7 of them (11%).Only 5 of the 206 people in a psychology study were more random than you. The house found you extremely hard to read.