The mention of choice points a sentence earlier plus... well lack of anything
explicitly stating here that RNG is involved, makes me think it may not be - or at least that it may not be required. The thing might just as well be fully deterministic, reproducing the exact same striped yes/no pattern each time, with the right duty cycle to add up to the percent chance.
If that's the case, you still could build a PRNG out of it with enough code, but that's the same thing as building PRNG out of regular math (%-operator would then be equivalent to hardcoding 100 100-bit constants). However, I would not call %-operator itself a (P)RNG or a randomness primitive.
Unfortunately, the linked reference in [5] is in PostScript format, and I have... exactly zero devices that can open that quickly, so I can't check. But I strongly hope I'm right, just so I can smirk at all the people, author included, who criticize ChatGPT for insisting %-op isn't a RNG, while forgetting about https://xkcd.com/221/.
If that's the case, you still could build a PRNG out of it with enough code, but that's the same thing as building PRNG out of regular math (%-operator would then be equivalent to hardcoding 100 100-bit constants). However, I would not call %-operator itself a (P)RNG or a randomness primitive.
Unfortunately, the linked reference in [5] is in PostScript format, and I have... exactly zero devices that can open that quickly, so I can't check. But I strongly hope I'm right, just so I can smirk at all the people, author included, who criticize ChatGPT for insisting %-op isn't a RNG, while forgetting about https://xkcd.com/221/.