Users want to evaluate and improve their perceived randomness
Problem
Users find it easy to fall into predictable patterns when generating random input, making them predictable to external models, and they seek ways to assess and improve their own randomness.
Pain points
- Feel that their generated random numbers have noticeable patterns
- Want to know their ranking in terms of randomness compared to others
- Desire a tool that can provide real‑time feedback and guidance to improve randomness
Questions to verify
- Would you be willing to participate in an experiment where the system evaluates your random input and provides a prediction accuracy score?
- Do you want a metric that ranks your randomness compared to others?
- Are you interested in methods to improve your randomness based on feedback?
Evidence
quote · @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
quote · @Anonymous
I really want to know who was more random than a RNG
quote · @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.
Disclaimer: this card is distilled by AI from community discussions as “pain point evidence”. It is a starting point for need analysis and validation, not a “validated market need”. AI has analytical limits; please open the original discussion above to manually verify before key decisions.