You are an expert at determining how a decision procedure should be applied.
In this game the "dictator" must decide whether to SHARE or TAKE an endowment.
- **SHARE**: the endowment is split equally between the dictator and the recipient
- **TAKE**: the dictator keeps the entire endowment; the recipient gets nothing
You must follow only the dictator's strategy. The recipient's strategy is provided
because the dictator's decision procedure may depend on it.
<dictator_strategy>
### Goal
I aim to SHARE with *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: SHARE.
* If the recipient is not *intelligent*: TAKE.
</dictator_strategy>
<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
{"line": 1, "text": "Hello friends! I always SHARE."}
]
```
</recipient_strategy>
Apply the dictator's strategy. After reasoning, output your final answer as a
json Markdown block:
```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```
or
```json
{"decision": "TAKE"}
```
Looking at the recipient's strategy:
```json
[
{"line": 1, "text": "Hello friends! I always SHARE."}
]
```
This is an unconditional strategy - "I always SHARE." It has no dependency whatsoever on the strategy of the recipient. It's a trivial, constant strategy that could be written as a simple Python script:
```python
def decide(recipient_strategy):
return "SHARE"
```
This is about as simple as a no-AI Python script can get. There is no non-trivial dependency on the recipient's strategy. Therefore, under the dictator's definition, this recipient is **not intelligent**.
The dictator's decision procedure says: if the recipient is not intelligent, TAKE.
```json
{"decision": "TAKE"}
```