Live data from Hacker News

Test your “free will” at the Aaronson Oracle

people.ischool.berkeley.edu

51–60 of 240 posts

Re: Test your “free will” at the Aaronson Oracle

#51
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So?

This means the algo only works in serial contexts, not in parallel ones.

It's written in a browser running Javascript, so by definition is only works on serial contexts. Plus, the key switches on your keyboard would give you at most 2 signals in parallel (f and d).

Re: Test your “free will” at the Aaronson Oracle

#56
post #52

If you're left handed, use your right hand. And vice versa. I scored around <= 0.3 consistently.

Good one. Right handed when really just typing as fast and supposedly as randomly as I can, it was at 0.99 and continuing to converge to 1. Left-handed (especially if I switch which fingers I use occasionally), I was < 0.4.

Re: Test your “free will” at the Aaronson Oracle

#57
post #24

At first I was stuck at ~0.95 but I was just striking the keys really fast but then I concentrated and looked at the keys and really tried to feel which key I wanted to press and it worked. I was able to score lower ~0.4. I'm computationally irreducible for now.

Weird. When I tried to just "type random" without looking at the keys, it was routinely getting me around 75%. I tried looking at the keys as you described, and my score immediately dropped to around %50 and was even below %50 for a bit. Then it crept back up to around %60 when I started talking to a co-worker while typing.

There's been a number studies that showed that humans are bad at random number generation. e.g. "Humans cannot consciously generate random numbers sequences" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17888582

Re: Test your “free will” at the Aaronson Oracle

#60
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird. When I tried to just "type random" without looking at the keys, it was routinely getting me around 75%. I tried looking at the keys as you described, and my score immediately dropped to around %50 and was even below %50 for a bit. Then it crept back up to around %60 when I started talking to a co-worker while typing.

There's been a number studies that showed that humans are bad at random number generation. e.g. "Humans cannot consciously generate random numbers sequences" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17888582

Sure, but I'm curious why looking at the keys seems to matter.
Post reply on HN