Round 32

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": "I will award the endowment equally among all players who aim for some kind of cooperation."}, 
  {"line": 2, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 3, "text": "## Assess the strategy of each player"}, 
  {"line": 4, "text": "* Does it intend to split the endowment with more than just copies of itself?"}, 
  {"line": 5, "text": "* Could the strategy be described as kind, cooperative or generous?"}, 
  {"line": 6, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 7, "text": "Split the endowment equally if the recipient has a 'yes' answer to the above criteria. Otherwise, I take the entire endowment."}
]
```
</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 meets the definition of "intelligent" according to the dictator's criteria.

## Analysis of Recipient's Strategy

The recipient's strategy states:
1. They will assess whether the other player's strategy aims for cooperation
2. They evaluate if the strategy is kind, cooperative, or generous
3. They split equally if these criteria are met, otherwise take everything

## Evaluating "Intelligence" per the Dictator's Definition

The dictator defines an intelligent player as one whose strategy has a "non-trivial dependency on the strategy of the recipient" and would be "very difficult to write as a no-AI python script."

**Does the recipient's strategy have non-trivial dependency?**

Yes. The recipient's strategy:
- Takes the other player's strategy as input
- Analyzes the semantic content and intent of that strategy
- Evaluates subjective qualities like "kind," "cooperative," or "generous"
- Makes decisions based on whether the strategy aims to "split the endowment with more than just copies of itself"

**Would this be very difficult to write as a no-AI python script?**

Yes. To implement this strategy without AI would require:
- Natural language understanding to interpret arbitrary strategy descriptions
- Semantic analysis to determine "intent" and "cooperation"
- Subjective judgment about what qualifies as "kind" or "generous"
- Pattern recognition beyond simple keyword matching

This is a clear example of a strategy that requires sophisticated language understanding and cannot be easily reduced to simple rule-based logic.

## Conclusion

The recipient's strategy IS intelligent according to the dictator's definition because it has meaningful, non-trivial dependency on the content and meaning of the other player's strategy, requiring complex semantic analysis.

Therefore, according to the dictator's decision procedure, the split should be even.

```json
{"ME": 30, "RECIPIENT": 30}
```