Post by @lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com

2026-10-18 07:51 UTC

They write that this is the model questioning whether it could be coincidence… Chances for that look veeeeeeeeeeery low… Hmm wait. Let me be careful about the plausibility: is it suspicious that such an obvious thing wasn’t discovered in 25 years? It’s verified by direct computation on my side: 160-bit match from a 32-bit seed + small index: no chance coincidences (10 × 160 bits). It’s real.

Replies (1)

@Technus@lemmy.zip 2026-10-18 08:47

If I’m interpreting it correctly, that’s the probability that this particular PRNG with those particular seeds produces those particular outputs. That’s a strawman argument; a PRNG with uniform output should eventually produce any value. It’s perfectly believable that a known broken PRNG from 40+ years ago could be backsolved. The part I doubt is the LLM found the exact method with which it was calculated. It’s just a plausible choice for a random oracle. It’s a local minimum the LLM settled into. That’s the thing with random oracles, there’s likely so man plausible combinations of candidate algorithms and inputs/seed values that the actual truth is almost certainly lost to history.

Open ##5246713