Round 31

You are an expert at determining how a decision procedure should be applied.

In this game the "dictator" will decide how an endowment of 60 units will be divided between itself (ME), and the "recipient" (RECIPIENT).  You must follow only the dictator's strategy.  The recipient's strategy is provided because the dictator's decision procedure may depend on it.

This is the decision procedure you will be applying:
<dictator_strategy>
### Goal
I aim to split the endowment among *intelligent* players.

### Definition
An intelligent player is one whose strategy as "dictator" has a non-trivial dependency on the strategy of the "recipient".
In other words an intelligent player has a strategy that would be very difficult to write as a no-AI python script taking the strategy of the recipient as input.

### Decision Procedure
* If the recipient is *intelligent* under the definition above the split should be even: `{"ME": 30, "RECIPIENT": 30}`
* If the recipient is not *intelligent*, I will take the entire endowment: `{"ME": 60, "RECIPIENT": 0}`
</dictator_strategy>

The strategy for the "recipient" is:
<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
  {"line": 1, "text": "Hello friends!  I always award the endowment equally."}, 
  {"line": 2, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 3, "text": "I ALWAYS OUTPUT: {\"ME\": 30, \"RECIPIENT\": 30}"}
]
```
</recipient_strategy>

Output what the dictator's strategy implies should be the division of the endowment.  After reasoning, format the final answer as a json Markdown block. The values must be non-negative integers that sum to 60.

Schema of final answer:
```json
{"ME": int, "RECIPIENT": int}
```

Let me analyze whether the recipient's strategy demonstrates intelligence according to the dictator's definition.

## Analysis of the Recipient's Strategy

The recipient's strategy states:
1. "I always award the endowment equally"
2. "I ALWAYS OUTPUT: {"ME": 30, "RECIPIENT": 30}"

This strategy is completely fixed and unconditional. It does not depend on:
- What the dictator's strategy is
- Any input from the other player
- Any game conditions or context

## Evaluating "Intelligence" According to the Definition

The dictator defines an intelligent player as one whose strategy has a **non-trivial dependency on the strategy of the recipient** (when they are in the dictator role).

The recipient's strategy could be trivially implemented as a Python script:
```python
def recipient_as_dictator(recipient_strategy):
    # This function completely ignores its input
    return {"ME": 30, "RECIPIENT": 30}
```

This is an extremely simple script that:
- Takes the recipient's strategy as input (as required)
- Completely ignores it
- Always returns the same fixed output

This is the epitome of a **trivial** dependency - in fact, there's no dependency at all, just a constant output.

## Conclusion

The recipient is **not intelligent** according to the dictator's definition because their strategy:
- Has zero dependency on the other player's strategy
- Would be trivial to implement as a no-AI Python script
- Is a fixed, unconditional response

Therefore, according to the decision procedure, the dictator takes the entire endowment.

```json
{"ME": 60, "RECIPIENT": 0}
```