• Anivia@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Well, there has to be some kind of algorithm. Even picking a random Wikipedia article technically is an algorithm, just not one that adapts to the user

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      21 hours ago

      True, but outside CS the word has come to refer to a certain brand of complex heuristics or ML inference.

    • fox2263@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      An algorithm usually involves lots of complex calculations and weights. Picking a number from a pool of numbers at random is as simple as it gets.

      • b_n@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        In comsci, there are no real random numbers. They are all seeded psuedo-random number algorithms. (Unless you integrate with some third party random as a service setup)

        • fox2263@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Yes but the common interpretation of “the algorithm” is that of the social media and YouTube style one. Recommending items of interest etc but easily manipulated by bad actors.

          Wiki random is about as opposite to that as possible.

        • weker01@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          That’s a common misconception. You can measure a lot of ambient noise and extract entropy. Like time between inputs or how long it took an HDD to seek.

          Most modern PC CPUs even have dedicated hardware for generating random numbers from electrical ambient noise. I don’t trust them however.