I have to wonder at the motivation here. Are you just playing around with this as an amusing semantic game or are you actually trying to defend the output of GPT-4?
If the former, fine but I definitely disagree. If I were to use an API that were documented in those terms but behaved the way you describe I would be absolutely livid. I'd want to seek out the authors and do violence upon their person. That is not a reasonable pairing of description and implementation, and I'm sure you'll be unsurprised to know it's not what C-INTERCAL does [1]. It doesn't use a cryptographically secure RNG, sadly (though there's no reason it couldn't), but it does use a RNG and certainly doesn't do what you suggest.
If the latter, though, I'm curious about the psychology. As I mentioned, this semantic rabbit hole is irrelevant to the profound wrongness of the paragraph I quoted. Every part of the sentence is wrong: the code isn't using a clever trick to produce seemingly random numbers, it's using the random behaviour built in to the language; %50 doesn't have anything to do with "mingl[ing] the bits of two 16-bit numbers" (that's "interleave", denoted with what looks like a cent symbol); the #1, #2 etc are constants, not unary operations; the fact that different results are produced each time is part of the language behaviour not the result of some trick. If you are defending this, why?
[1] https://github.com/calvinmetcalf/intercal/blob/8a65e8ba1cc65...
If the former, fine but I definitely disagree. If I were to use an API that were documented in those terms but behaved the way you describe I would be absolutely livid. I'd want to seek out the authors and do violence upon their person. That is not a reasonable pairing of description and implementation, and I'm sure you'll be unsurprised to know it's not what C-INTERCAL does [1]. It doesn't use a cryptographically secure RNG, sadly (though there's no reason it couldn't), but it does use a RNG and certainly doesn't do what you suggest.
If the latter, though, I'm curious about the psychology. As I mentioned, this semantic rabbit hole is irrelevant to the profound wrongness of the paragraph I quoted. Every part of the sentence is wrong: the code isn't using a clever trick to produce seemingly random numbers, it's using the random behaviour built in to the language; %50 doesn't have anything to do with "mingl[ing] the bits of two 16-bit numbers" (that's "interleave", denoted with what looks like a cent symbol); the #1, #2 etc are constants, not unary operations; the fact that different results are produced each time is part of the language behaviour not the result of some trick. If you are defending this, why?
[1] https://github.com/calvinmetcalf/intercal/blob/8a65e8ba1cc65...