Share your repls and programming experiences

← Back to all posts

# ARE COMPUTERS MORE RANDOM THAN HUMANS?

I have a friend at school (we will call him Miko for his privacy) and he believes that humans are more random than computers. I have created this website to prove him wrong! Press the buttons as randomly as humanly possible. Repeat that 10 or more times. Thank you if you did it! Go to statistics to view that my argument (computers are more random than humans) holds true!

## Homework

I've been learning about the other 3 trigonometric functions: cosecant, secant, and cotangent. What is the point of these functions?

## Help

Miko claims humans are more random because their "algorithm" for generating random number always changes. When the human is feeling silly, he might respond with 69 (nice) and if he is feeling mathematical, he might respond with 3.14159265358979323846264338 (pi) or 2.71828182845904523536028747135266967 (e). Please comment below with counter-arguments!

# Closing

Thank you if you did the experiment and be sure to do the homework set up for you and the help as well!

# Vote up if you liked this fun experiment!

### Thanks a lot for messing up my data lol

Next time please fork and get your own endpoint at jsonstore.io. Thanks! Happy hacking!
What did I just say? (to whoever messed up my data again)

hotnewtop
Highwayman (1483)

By his argument computers are equally random (or even more random) because they can produce different results with a prng based just on the time of day, but in the same sense computers are way less random, because the random numbers are still following an exact pattern, no matter how obscure(it’s called a prng for a reason, right?). The thing is though I know it’s possible to get purely random numbers, because in c++11 they have a class called random_device that is listed as a 'true' rng. Also I’m pretty sure ranlux(the algo) is supposed to have been proven to have no connection / correlation / whatever-you-call-it between numbers.

[deleted]

Very true. @Highwayman

Coder100 (18071)

Yes! I'll. Tell him that! @CodeABC123

Highwayman (1483)

@Coder100 might want to be careful and study up first though lol.

eankeen (2170)

@Highwayman c++'s `random_device` is a true random number generator only if you instruct it to use the RDSEED assembly instruction. depending on how you compile it (i am unsure of the defaults), it can fallback to `/dev/urandom` and `dev/random`, or RDRAND, which are cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generators (CSPRNG), or to mersenne twister for regular pseudo random number generation.

Highwayman (1483)

@eankeen very good to know actually! I’ve been looking for a csprng actually.

MrMinimax (140)

That's so funny becuase this was my science fair project like 4 years ago :)

Coder100 (18071)

Noice! What were ur results? @MrMinimax

MrMinimax (140)

I got human but this was like 4th grade lel
@Coder100

Coder100 (18071)

lel I bet it'll be computer nowadays lol @MrMinimax

MrMinimax (140)

I don't even know after looking through this comment thread
@Coder100

[deleted]

everybody pick 3

Coder100 (18071)

Lol, everything else is picked way too much! @TaylorLiang

JordanDixon1 (178)

Computers are not that random if you think about it. Humans can calculate the algorithm by which computers randomly choose something (computers are made by humans which means that somebody had to code it how to be random.) On top of all this, computers go by the same program over and over again while humans are affected by different stimuli such as: life events, choices, etc. In this case, the computer is coded to evenly distribute clicks, if a bar goes above another then it tries to make up for it.

Coder100 (18071)

However, the data shows that humans even if they can predict it (remember it is pseudo-random) gives even distribution however humans don't. @JordanDixon1

Coder100 (18071)

Stimuli will just make the number choices more biased if you take that into consideration. @JordanDixon1

Coder100 (18071)

And because the bars are evenly distributed, it is clearly more random than humans as the data shows the bars are uneven, making the numbers biased. @JordanDixon1

JordanDixon1 (178)

@Coder100 The thing is though, everyone has a different life and different experiances. The reason why humans are less random today is because everyone wants to be like everyone else: this is called the "Social Contract" everyone is taught to like the same stuff, talk the same way, etc. However if none of this was at play then it would become truly random, as every person would have a different answer.

JordanDixon1 (178)

@JordanDixon1 You also need to take into account: How many people participated, why they participated, did they legitimately do it randomly or just select the same answer over and over again, etc.

Coder100 (18071)

Of course, so that is why computers are more random. @JordanDixon1

LiamDonohue (294)

because humans can calculate the algorithm it means they are less random @JordanDixon1

eankeen (2170)

neat experiment :P. here's my two cents

computers will always be more random than humans because they have the potential to access sources of true randomness, such as atmospheric noise, or by using a computer processor that implements the RDSEED instruction. machines can generate cryptographically secure pseudorandom numbers (CSPRNG), which are not truly random but are good enough to be unpredictable, as their usage in cryptography may suggest. CSPRNG algorithms may use human interaction, such as from a keyboard and mouse to create entropy for seeding the entropy pool. while human interaction is not strictly necessary because entropy can be gathered from other sources, it typically speeds up the process of of CSPRN generation (ex. if you are using on linux and using the blocking `/dev/random`). so, machines are able to generate "true" random numbers, and CSPRNGs (and of course others). humans are random enough to assist the CSPRNG, by helping seed the entropy pool through mouse movements etc. but, if you ask any human to 'generate' some random number, it will always be mostly predictable, as the number will, most of the time, be some small finite, some well known infinitely repeating irrational, or a exceptionally large integer that is divisible by `1000`, multiplicity `n`. once the number is mostly predictable, it is no longer "truly" random or or a cryptographically secure random number. so, it sounds like both you and your friend are correct, just probably not in the ways either of you expected.

as you can see, i had quite a bit of fun researching the topic :P

dbrioli (1)

Humans are not random. They have known biases that even if you sourced the numbers from a large enough population, you would still end up with a non-random distribution.

Computers are not random. There is no way to generate randomness from deterministic processes.

We can generate what appears to be a random distribution of numbers more easily from a computer than from a human. If output that looks random is what you are after, computers beat humans handily.

Also, his definition of randomness is wrong. If one time I choose 69 as my output, and the next I choose pi, those are both completely not random.

Coder100 (18071)

Thanks! I'll be sure to tell him that! @dbrioli

HngTrnh (1)

when computer try random, it don't random in first answer, The first number of random will be default in your computer. But it will be different if you try random in your friend's computer. Human can random anything and their don't have default number or more thing like it. So human random more than computer. I thinks so that

Coder100 (18071)

Yes, but what does the default number change anything? The humans understand what numbers mean, and can create numbers based on that. @HngTrnh

AaronSpeedy (0)

Well really they are equally random. Each of them take an input and output an output. Of course it's more complicated than that, but no, humans aren't 'more random' than machines.

[deleted]

True randomness means the bars should be roughly the same height.

Ah, but the bars aren’t the same height for computers. This is the chart for computers:
1: nothing
2: five million and something
3: nothing
4: nothing
5: nothing

Humans win!

[deleted]

RANDOM.ORG-A True Random Number Service

JackFly26 (106)

Computers cannot be random. They pick it off a chaotic algorithm, so it's hard to predict the next result, but it's still based off a pattern. Even if they listen to atmospheric noise, the weather is technically predictable; it's just hard to get all the data.

Rocksyes (0)

i feel bad for you XD

people keep messing up your data lol

dbrioli (1)

@Rocksyes thats because people arent random.

Rocksyes (0)

@dbrioli lol they keep messing up your data because they aren't random and they keep doing the same thing

MoreFlameFire63 (8)

Hey guys it’s me, the one @Coder100 was talking about.
This post might be taken down due to me reporting @Coder100 for not keeping my right to privacy. Computers are not smarter. Happy Coding 👌🔥🍪!

Coder100 (18071)

What privacy? Anyways, computers are more smarter than humans. @MoreFlameFire63

MoreFlameFire63 (8)

@Coder100, I find you are using my name in public illegally without consent, therefore, you have been reported to ***. Happy Report slip!

Coder100 (18071)

Problem is that isn't your name. Plus, your last name isn't even posted. I know another Miko. @MoreFlameFire63

Coder100 (18071)

Oh yeah, and posting your comment here tells everyone ur real name. Have you noticed? Go to your profile: @MoreFlameFire63

[deleted]

@Coder100 bruh thats hilarious

Coder100 (18071)

Seems like you're still mad at me :( "F coder100" @MoreFlameFire63

[deleted]

So true @Coder100

[deleted]

Can computers answer this question then?

What is the answer to this question?

Make a piece of code that answers the question correctly, and give me the code. @Coder100

RohilPatel (1581)

Yessss! I also happen to be part of this experiment lol!

ChezCoder (1605)

i set up a loop in console to spam click one...
edit: now im spam clicking four
edit: i kinda currupted the data so now humans are very random, forked your project and haxed everything...