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 sensationalized part, that 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 many plausible combinations of candidate algorithms and inputs/seed values that the actual truth is almost certainly lost to history.
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 sensationalized part, that 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 many plausible combinations of candidate algorithms and inputs/seed values that the actual truth is almost certainly lost to history.