I understand your point, but the context is that repeatedly, experiments have shown that humans inject too much pattern to be good rngs. It turns out that is visible with training after the fact.
Yes, it is possible that any two 50-sequence patterns are actual rng. But some of them are much more likely, and we can tell.
I'm not sure what your point is. A collection of samples were taken from humans, and they did not form a uniform distribution. Samples from an unbiased RNG are much closer to uniform.
Are you saying we should ignore the distribution we observe from humans and predict them as uniform anyway?
You say yourself "strings are equally likely if they're being purely randomly selected". So you move the goalpost to define "random" as "whatever a human would think is random".
> Samples from an unbiased RNG
you mean a PRNG.
> Are you saying we should ignore the distribution we observe from humans and predict them as uniform anyway?
I'm saying the exercise in general is a little pointless, but that's fine.
