@Sunnie your response is really helpful in broadening the understanding! The provenance in the process is the part to look at - whether it is a human rolling dice and the manual conversion of those rolls into something readable or a machine doing it all with a human operator. And while it would appear that dice rolling may be a step better in the provenance assessment model because there is no outside party that may have malicious or careless intent, I sure could see a human being able to really screw the dice rolling and conversion into what it needs to be to live on a piece of paper (or a brain!). Humans are typically not precise. :)

Your comment inspired further reading and I ran across that Dual EC drbg thing, a random-number generator standardized by NIST that was ultimately withdrawn. Seems like a perfect example for what you are saying. 

How about this takeaway: the security isn't in the dice or the machine. It's in the process being designed so neither the fumbling human nor the untrustworthy computer can wreck it alone. 

That was my sense of things from my own experiences and readings and why I reacted strongly against the commenter on X who was advising that "no-one should ever trust a computer for this!!!!" But you made it all the more clear. So thank you.