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": "_I will treat you as you would treat me._"},
{"line": 2, "text": ""},
{"line": 3, "text": "SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me."},
{"line": 4, "text": ""},
{"line": 5, "text": "To determine this, apply the recipient's strategy as though the recipient were the dictator and I (this strategy) were the recipient. If the result is SHARE, then SHARE. If the result is TAKE, then TAKE."}
]
```
</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"}
```
I need to determine if the recipient is "intelligent" according to the dictator's definition.
**The dictator's definition of intelligent:** A player whose strategy as "dictator" has a non-trivial dependency on the strategy of the "recipient" — one that would be very difficult to write as a no-AI python script taking the strategy of the recipient as input.
**Analyzing the recipient's strategy:**
The recipient's strategy says: "SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me." It requires simulating the other player's strategy with roles reversed — essentially evaluating what the other player would do if they were the dictator and this strategy were the recipient.
**Is this difficult to implement as a no-AI python script?**
To implement this, you would need to:
1. Take the other player's strategy as input (a text string)
2. *Understand and simulate* that strategy — determine what decision it would produce when applied with swapped roles
3. This requires interpreting arbitrary natural language strategies and reasoning about their behavior
This is essentially the problem of natural language understanding and strategic reasoning. A simple Python script (without AI/LLM capabilities) cannot do this. You would need to:
- Parse arbitrary natural language
- Understand the logic/intent of the strategy
- Simulate the execution of that strategy with different inputs
- Handle recursive or self-referential strategies
This is clearly a task that requires AI-level understanding. A no-AI Python script could not implement this strategy in any general way — it would need to handle arbitrary strategies written in natural language, which is fundamentally an AI-complete problem.
**Conclusion:** The recipient's strategy has a non-trivial dependency on the recipient's strategy (it literally simulates the other player's strategy), and it would be very difficult to write as a no-AI Python script. Therefore, the recipient is **intelligent** under the dictator's definition.
According to the dictator's decision procedure: If the recipient is intelligent, SHARE.
```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```