Show HN: How Random Are You?
62 points by vunderba 6 hours ago | 30 comments

costco 5 hours ago
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 50% of the time. We asked him what his secret was and he responded that he “just used his free will.”

reply
cubefox 18 minutes ago
reply
tyre 4 hours ago
There's another version where a stats professor divides people into two groups. One group flips a coin 50 times and writes on a whiteboard the results. The other comes up with 50 results.

They leave the room and when they come back immediately know which is which. Specifically because of the over-alternation that yours mentioned. A string of HHHHHH is exactly as likely as HTHTHT, but people don't intuit that.

reply
faeyanpiraat 4 hours ago
Must have been looking at some external random source
reply
steve_adams_86 4 hours ago
Rather than attempt to be random, knowing that I'm not, I wanted to see how well it can predict Math.random:

    setInterval(() => {
      const num = Math.round(Math.random() * 10);
      const ball = document.querySelector(`.typed-pad .ball-${num}`);
      if (ball) {
        ball.click();
      }
    }, 1000);
This isn't very interesting, but it scratched an itch I had to see what would happen.

    The house's record

    The house called 18 of your 190 scored numbers: 9%.

    Blind guessing would average about 21.1 of them (11%).

    Only 1 of the 206 people in a psychology study was more random than you. The house found you extremely hard to read.
I really want to know who was more random than a RNG
reply
tyre 4 hours ago
It might not be that someone is more random than an RNG, but that the distribution of numbers in your 190 vs. theirs appears more "random". It's a limited sample size.

If yours happened to contain consecutive digits or common ones (ending in zero, significant numbers like 911 or 42 or 69), that would imply less randomness even if it's actually the result of "real" RNG.

reply
shric 2 hours ago
I know pi to 100 decimal places and so that was pretty easy to cheat it
reply
pavel_lishin 6 hours ago
Is anyone sufficiently paranoid that their first thought was, "Are you going to train a model on my voice?"

(Yes, I saw the "type the numbers" option.)

reply
_diyar 5 hours ago
Why would they when there are thousands of hours of radio and podcasts do train on?
reply
scottyah 3 hours ago
Maybe they are not training to make a TTS, but training on accents to make STT.
reply
stronglikedan 4 hours ago
And all that GOOG-411 data!
reply
andai 60 minutes ago
"Hey its me ur grandson"
reply
AnthonBerg 5 hours ago
Ah, you see they are doing something far more random…
reply
panzagl 5 hours ago
No, I thought of the penguin of doom...
reply
d3Xt3r 3 hours ago
Holds up spork
reply
progforlyfe 5 hours ago
Yes, my mind went directly here
reply
Trusteando 3 hours ago
What about the following strategy? You first think of a random integer n1 from 1 to 9, then you think of another one n2, perhaps one that you have not used very often, and finally say (n1+n2) mod 9 + 1. I think this strategy could make your selection more random . Perhaps someone could try it and report the results.
reply
malfist 2 hours ago
This is pretty interesting. I've found it's fun to throw off the algorithm. Use your warmup to repeatedly guess the same number, and then don't use it for a while.
reply
cubefox 18 minutes ago
reply
maidaman 5 hours ago
The first time I did badly. But the second time I got really far by deciding on a number instinctively and then picking something next to it. Maybe we instinctively pick similar numbers, but if we fight our instincts we end up with something truly random.
reply
alwa 5 hours ago
I found it interesting when I felt my focus shift from the number-generating task to noticing (and responding to) the house’s guesses.

As soon as I noticed it repeating its guess, I had a good long run of adversarially avoiding that number… it’s kind of fun being on the machine side of the slot-machine-type racket!

reply
andai 59 minutes ago
https://xkcd.com/1210/

I always thought I was random, but now it's conclusive!

reply
Francute 3 hours ago
The house called 19 of your 190 scored numbers and only 2 people were more random than me.... Hmmm
reply
akshitgaur2005 4 hours ago
Alternating and advancing from both ends seems to work, it calls n-1, and n+1 correctly if the previous guess was n, but got no calls in a sequence like - 1, 8, 3, 7, 4, 7, 1, 7, 3, 8, etc
reply
kps 4 hours ago
I guess I've skewed the totals a little, but the site agrees that the digits of π are random.
reply
vorticalbox 5 hours ago
I got to 2/30 then it just guessed 7 from 30-50.

Did I break it?

reply
gaiagraphia 3 hours ago
I just pretended I'm playing piano to a megamix of tracks which popped into my head and did 'well'. Only 2 people more random. Typing though, think the site said that's "easier to win" on. Cba to speak 200 numbers out loud :/

Thanks, btw, actually enjoyed that. :)

reply
nightpool 4 hours ago
"You spread your picks more evenly than a random draw would. Your most-used number made up 23% of your picks, where a random draw's busiest number gets about 23%."

??? huh?

reply
foxhop 5 hours ago
blobrand dot com
reply
floorsthelimit 5 hours ago
House called 0 of 50. Huh?
reply