thinking this through a little bit, you are launching a series of gradient-descent work tasks, right? taskId is your counter value, weightIdx is your key value (RNG stream). That's how I'd port that. Ideally you want to define some maximum PRNG usage for each stage of the program, which allows you to establish fixed offsets from the epoch value for a given event. Divide your keystream in whatever advantageous way, based on (highly-compressible) epoch counters and event offsets from that value.

in practice, assuming a gradient-descent event needs a lot of random numbers, having one keystream for a single GD event might be too much and that's where key-spreading comes in. if you take the "weightIdx W at GradientDescentIdx G" as the key, you can have a whole global keystream-space for that descent stage. And the key-spreading-function lets you go between your composite key and a practical one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_derivation_function

(again, like threefry, there is notionally no need for this to be cryptographically secure in most cases, as long as it spreads in ways that your CBRNG crypto algorithm can tolerate without bit-correlation. there is no need to do 2 million rounds here either etc. You should actually pick reasonable parameters here for fast performance, but good enough keyspreading for your needs.)

I've been out of this for a long time, I've been told I'm out of date before and GPGPUs might not behave exactly this way anymore, so please just take it in the spirit it's offered, can't guarantee this is right but I've specifically gazed into the abyss the CuRand situation a decade ago and this was what I managed to come up with. I do feel your pain on the stateful RNG situation, managing state per-execution-thread is awful and destroys simulation reproducibility, and managing a PRNG context for each possible element is often infeasible. What a waste of VRAM and bandwidth and mutation/cache etc.

And I think that cryptographic/pseudo-cryptographic PRNG models are frankly just a much better horse to hook your wagon to than scientific/academic ones, even apart from all the other advantages. Like there's just not any way mersenne twister or w/e is better than threefish, sorry academia

--

edit: Real-world sim programs are usually very low-intensity and have effectively unlimited amounts of compute to spare, they just ride on bandwidth (sort/search or sort/prefix-scan/search algorithms with global scope building blocks often work well).

And tbh that's why tensor is so amazing, it's super effective at math intensity and computational focus, and that's what GPUs do well, augmented by things like sparse models etc. Make your random not-math task into dense or sparse (but optimized) GPGPU math, plus you get a solution (reasonable optimum) to an intractible problem in realtime. The experienced salesman usually finds a reasonable optimum, but we pay him in GEMM/BLAS/Tensor compute time instead of dollars.

Sort/search or sort/prefix-sum/search often works really well in deterministic programs too. Do you ever have a "myGroup[groupIdx].addObj(objIdx) stage? that's a sort and prefix-sum operation right there, and both of those ops run super well on GPGPU.