4 ms·

>The prediction algorithm is actually very straightforward[1]. It's a fun exercise to write a sequence generator specifically to defeat it. if you are inspecti

>The prediction algorithm is actually very straightforward[1]. It's a fun exercise to write a sequence generator specifically to defeat it. if you are inspecting the prediction algorithm, and you want to specifically defeat it, doesn't that mean copy the prediction algorithm and throw a "not" on it? It's the old halting problem trick...

_notreallyme_ 3y ago
You should indeed try and target a 50% accuracy rate.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  maybe I don't understand, 50% is the goal? when I played I thought % was how often it predicted what I pressed, and even though 0% is 100% wrong which is 100% right in a parallel universe, it would still represent me winning. in any case, my post was serious, regardless of the % number, if you are inspecting their algorithm and writing your own, I can't understand why you wouldn't use theirs in yours. Finding an isomorphism might be fun, but it's not necessary.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    50% means it is "no better than random" while 0% means it is accurately predicting what you won't press and 100% means it is accurately predicting what you will press.
    - brvsft 3y ago
      > it is accurately predicting what you won't press That is not what it's predicting. You have changed the definition of predict so that an incorrect prediction can be misinterpreted as a correct prediction.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        If you have two choices ... and I always predict the wrong one ... another way to say that is: "I always predict the one you won't choose." If I can't actually predict which one you choose, then statistically, I should be right 50% of the time.
        lupire 3y ago
        So? If I can reliably lose every basketball game, that doesn't make be perfect at basketball. To put it more plainly: if you were wagering on the outcome, would you rather win 50% of the time (EV=0) or 100% of the time (EV=max)? 100% misprediction is only relevant if a 3rd party adversary is observing the game. In the absence of such an adversary, being reliably wrong it worthless.
        bena 3y ago
        100% misprediction of two choices is an error in the algorithm. You could flip the prediction at the end and be 100% right. 50% misprediction cannot be improved upon with trivial methods.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        withinboredom 3y ago
        You are comparing to things that don't even make sense in the current context. You have two choices. I predict correctly or I predict incorrectly. If I'm randomly guessing, I will be right 50% of the time (effectively, this is a coin flip). If I always guess incorrectly, then I'm correctly guessing the incorrect choice. If I always guess correctly, then I'm correctly guessing the correct choice. I'm trying to explain why 50% is your target for "fooling the algorithm" and not 0%, which is not fooling the algorithm at all. There's no reason to be obtuse here, I'm legitimately trying to help you understand some statistics... this isn't an argument, it doesn't matter "what you believe" ... this is math.
        3y ago
  - _notreallyme_ 3y ago
    The 50% goal is against an adaptative adversary. For some reason, Zero Knowledge Proof[1] came to my mind, so I interpreted the goal as reaching a 50% accuracy on the oracle side. Your interpretation of the goal is also valid, but not in a cryptography context, for example. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_knowledge_proof
xattt 3y ago
It is an exercise of free will to overcome the imposed barriers of some test.
- GTP 3y ago
  Although I do believe we have free will, I don't agree with this specific example: looking at the algorithm used to predict key presses and just doing the opposite of what would the algorithm predicts, is letting the algorithm tell you what to do. This is related to inverse psychology.
  - lupire 3y ago
    How do you define free will?
    - aeneasmackenzie 3y ago
      Even a Turing machine has free will. You can’t find out what it will do without running it, in a way beyond all questions of technical capability. Mechanistic attacks on free will died with godel.
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
        Yes, if you define an array of transistors to have free will, it certainly does!
    - pixl97 3y ago
      I would say it's a measure of probability. Of course measuring probability in non repeatable situations gets tricky. But, if I wrote there is a 90% probability that lupire will write an application to 'beat' the free will program, and then you did so, it should at least give you pause.
    - GTP 3y ago
      I say that I have free will because my decisions come from myself and not from something outside me. Sure, the context in which I live can influence my decisions, but the final choice is mine and it can happen that I take a decision that goes against what the context (society, family etc.) would expect from me.

_notreallyme_ 3y ago

You should indeed try and target a 50% accuracy rate.

fsckboy 3y ago
maybe I don't understand, 50% is the goal? when I played I thought % was how often it predicted what I pressed, and even though 0% is 100% wrong which is 100% right in a parallel universe, it would still represent me winning. in any case, my post was serious, regardless of the % number, if you are inspecting their algorithm and writing your own, I can't understand why you wouldn't use theirs in yours. Finding an isomorphism might be fun, but it's not necessary.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  50% means it is "no better than random" while 0% means it is accurately predicting what you won't press and 100% means it is accurately predicting what you will press.
  - brvsft 3y ago
    > it is accurately predicting what you won't press That is not what it's predicting. You have changed the definition of predict so that an incorrect prediction can be misinterpreted as a correct prediction.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      If you have two choices ... and I always predict the wrong one ... another way to say that is: "I always predict the one you won't choose." If I can't actually predict which one you choose, then statistically, I should be right 50% of the time.
      - lupire 3y ago
        So? If I can reliably lose every basketball game, that doesn't make be perfect at basketball. To put it more plainly: if you were wagering on the outcome, would you rather win 50% of the time (EV=0) or 100% of the time (EV=max)? 100% misprediction is only relevant if a 3rd party adversary is observing the game. In the absence of such an adversary, being reliably wrong it worthless.
        bena 3y ago
        100% misprediction of two choices is an error in the algorithm. You could flip the prediction at the end and be 100% right. 50% misprediction cannot be improved upon with trivial methods.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        withinboredom 3y ago
        You are comparing to things that don't even make sense in the current context. You have two choices. I predict correctly or I predict incorrectly. If I'm randomly guessing, I will be right 50% of the time (effectively, this is a coin flip). If I always guess incorrectly, then I'm correctly guessing the incorrect choice. If I always guess correctly, then I'm correctly guessing the correct choice. I'm trying to explain why 50% is your target for "fooling the algorithm" and not 0%, which is not fooling the algorithm at all. There's no reason to be obtuse here, I'm legitimately trying to help you understand some statistics... this isn't an argument, it doesn't matter "what you believe" ... this is math.
        3y ago
- _notreallyme_ 3y ago
  The 50% goal is against an adaptative adversary. For some reason, Zero Knowledge Proof[1] came to my mind, so I interpreted the goal as reaching a 50% accuracy on the oracle side. Your interpretation of the goal is also valid, but not in a cryptography context, for example. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_knowledge_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_knowledge_proof

xattt 3y ago

It is an exercise of free will to overcome the imposed barriers of some test.

GTP 3y ago
Although I do believe we have free will, I don't agree with this specific example: looking at the algorithm used to predict key presses and just doing the opposite of what would the algorithm predicts, is letting the algorithm tell you what to do. This is related to inverse psychology.
- lupire 3y ago
  How do you define free will?
  - aeneasmackenzie 3y ago
    Even a Turing machine has free will. You can’t find out what it will do without running it, in a way beyond all questions of technical capability. Mechanistic attacks on free will died with godel.
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Yes, if you define an array of transistors to have free will, it certainly does!
  - pixl97 3y ago
    I would say it's a measure of probability. Of course measuring probability in non repeatable situations gets tricky. But, if I wrote there is a 90% probability that lupire will write an application to 'beat' the free will program, and then you did so, it should at least give you pause.
  - GTP 3y ago
    I say that I have free will because my decisions come from myself and not from something outside me. Sure, the context in which I live can influence my decisions, but the final choice is mine and it can happen that I take a decision that goes against what the context (society, family etc.) would expect from me.