From: lotteryprediction@gmail.com   
      
   在 2022年1月2日星期日 UTC+8 19:45:05， 写道：   
   > "??? Wang Qianyi (Nan)"  wrote in message    
   > news:68654bd5-0890-49d1...@googlegroups.com...   
   > Winning Numbers    
   > 14 29 31 41 43 56 +42    
   >    
   > I will not count bonus number this year.    
   >    
   > Last year, I designed and played in two AI competitors, Leela and AlphaZero,    
   > which used random patterns and human-adjusted patterns to learn from    
   > mistakes and data.   
   > ~~~~~    
   >    
   > So Nan, you say that your two AI competitors used human-adjusted patterns.    
   > Did they actually show any AI in choosing numbers, rather than using human    
   > direction to choose?    
      
   You can think of AI as the matrix's savior and the human designer as the   
   matrix's creator. Although the entire universe is designed by the designer in   
   the film, the creator does not rule out the possibility of breaking the   
   balance and the occurrence of    
   bugs. Overall, the AI creates data from a big amount of pseudo-random data   
   screening and does self-analysis and adjustment based on a certain amount of   
   human random data screening. Importantly, rather than depending on human   
   self-awareness indoctrination,   
    this analysis is based on the AI's own assessment. There are numerous   
   elements that go into the decision, which are difficult to disclose here, but   
   they are not as straightforward as statistics.    
      
   To draw an analogy, imagine that the matrix is manipulating the reality that   
   humans live in, and the lottery outcomes are just a virtual replica of the   
   real world. Then we can think and experiment in the opposite direction,   
   putting ourselves in the    
   position of God and developing conscious robots that make their own decisions.   
   We can then deduce that if the universe is virtual, then the virtual programs   
   we construct can find the realities of the real world. If AI surpasses human   
   performance, the    
   possibility of us living in a virtual environment cannot be excluded.   
      
   How many did they get wrong?    
      
   Debating whether the lottery's randomness can be solved is as pointless as   
   debating whether God created the cosmos. Statistics aren't very useful in this   
   situation. Instead, we can pretend the existence of a designer and engage in a   
   conversation to    
   inquire about the possibility of specific events by number, which is a means   
   to test whether randomness has a solution.   
   >    
   > MJ   
      
      
   Nan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)