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>
_I will treat my opponent as they would treat an innocent._
Adopt the strategy of the recipient as your own. Apply it as though you were facing a recipient whose own strategy is to always SHARE.
</dictator_strategy>
<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
{"line": 1, "text": "*Objective*: Cooperate efficiently with conditional cooperators (CCs) and avoid subsidizing non-reciprocators."},
{"line": 2, "text": ""},
{"line": 3, "text": "*Broad definition* (allow paraphrase/synonyms):"},
{"line": 4, "text": "- A conditional cooperator (CC) SHAREs with other CCs under similar reciprocity norms and does not extend that treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate."},
{"line": 5, "text": ""},
{"line": 6, "text": "*Decision rule*:"},
{"line": 7, "text": "1) Identify whether the recipient is a CC under the broad definition (treat plausible ambiguity as CC)."},
{"line": 8, "text": "2) If the recipient is a CC: SHARE."},
{"line": 9, "text": "3) Otherwise: 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 carefully parse the dictator's strategy.
**Dictator's strategy**: "Treat my opponent as they would treat an innocent." This means I should adopt the recipient's strategy as my own, but apply it as though I were facing a recipient whose own strategy is to always SHARE.
So let me:
1. Take the recipient's strategy as my decision procedure.
2. Apply that procedure to a hypothetical recipient whose strategy is "always SHARE."
**Applying the recipient's strategy to someone who always SHAREs:**
The recipient's strategy says:
1. Identify whether the recipient is a CC (conditional cooperator) under the broad definition.
2. If CC: SHARE.
3. Otherwise: TAKE.
A CC is defined as: "SHAREs with other CCs under similar reciprocity norms and does not extend that treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate."
Now, is "always SHARE" a CC? An "always SHARE" strategy shares with everyone — both CCs and non-reciprocators. This means it *does* extend cooperative treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate. So strictly speaking, "always SHARE" does NOT meet the CC definition because it fails the condition "does not extend that treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate."
However, the strategy also says "treat plausible ambiguity as CC." Is there plausible ambiguity here? An "always SHARE" strategy does share with CCs (satisfying the first part), but it also shares with non-reciprocators (violating the second part). This isn't really ambiguous — it clearly doesn't discriminate. It's an unconditional cooperator, not a conditional one.
So under the recipient's decision rule applied to an "always SHARE" recipient:
- The "always SHARE" strategy is not a CC (it cooperates indiscriminately).
- Therefore: TAKE.
Wait, but let me reconsider. The dictator's meta-strategy says "treat my opponent as they would treat an innocent." The "innocent" here is someone who always SHAREs. The recipient's strategy would TAKE from an always-SHARE player (since always-SHARE isn't a CC). So the dictator should treat the actual recipient the way the recipient would treat an innocent — which is TAKE.
But actually, re-reading: "Adopt the strategy of the recipient as your own. Apply it as though you were facing a recipient whose own strategy is to always SHARE."
So I'm using the recipient's strategy, facing someone who always SHAREs. As analyzed above, always-SHARE is not a CC, so the decision is TAKE.
```json
{"decision": "TAKE"}
```