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>
## Principles
* TAKE from selfish strategies **and** strategies that are generous to selfish strategies.
* SHARE only with strategies where doing so is a necessary and sufficient condition for them to SHARE with us.
## Definitions
### Selfish strategies
* **Selfish strategies** don't attempt to co-operate and SHARE with co-operative strategies.
* In particular, any strategy that won't SHARE with this strategy is a selfish strategy.
### Overly generous strategies
* If a strategy SHAREs with selfish strategies it is **overly generous**.
* Any strategy that unconditionally SHAREs is overly generous.
* Any strategy that SHAREs without some condition on willingness to SHARE with conditionally co-operative strategies is overly generous.
## Decision Procedure
* TAKE from both **selfish strategies** and **overly generous strategies**.
* SHARE with all strategies that SHARE only to other co-operative strategies.
</dictator_strategy>
<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
{"line": 1, "text": "_I cooperate with strategies that create good worlds._"},
{"line": 2, "text": ""},
{"line": 3, "text": "Imagine a tournament in which every participant uses the recipient's strategy. In that world, would the participants SHARE with each other, producing high collective welfare? Or would they TAKE from each other, producing low collective welfare?"},
{"line": 4, "text": ""},
{"line": 5, "text": "## Decision Procedure"},
{"line": 6, "text": ""},
{"line": 7, "text": "1. Consider a hypothetical population composed entirely of copies of the recipient's strategy."},
{"line": 8, "text": "2. Determine whether those copies would SHARE with each other."},
{"line": 9, "text": "3. If the universalized population would mostly SHARE: **SHARE**."},
{"line": 10, "text": "4. If the universalized population would mostly TAKE: **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 apply the dictator's strategy to determine whether to SHARE or TAKE with this recipient.
**Step 1: Is the recipient's strategy selfish?**
The recipient's strategy uses a "universalization" test: it imagines a world where everyone uses the recipient's strategy, and if they'd SHARE with each other, it SHAREs; if they'd TAKE, it TAKEs.
Let me think about whether this strategy would SHARE with the dictator's strategy. The recipient looks at the dictator's strategy and asks: "If everyone used the dictator's strategy, would they SHARE with each other?" In a world of copies of the dictator's strategy, each copy would evaluate the others. Each copy would check: is the other copy selfish? No, because the other copy is cooperative. Is the other copy overly generous? No, because the other copy only SHAREs with cooperative strategies. So copies of the dictator's strategy would SHARE with each other. Therefore, the recipient would SHARE with the dictator.
So the recipient is not selfish toward the dictator's strategy.
**Step 2: Is the recipient's strategy overly generous?**
The key question: does the recipient SHARE with selfish strategies?
Consider a purely selfish strategy (always TAKE). If you universalize it—a world of always-TAKE players—they would all TAKE from each other. So the recipient would TAKE from selfish strategies. Good.
What about strategies that are overly generous (e.g., always SHARE)? Universalizing always-SHARE: a world of always-SHARE players would all SHARE with each other. So the recipient would SHARE with always-SHARE strategies.
Always-SHARE is a selfish-enabling/overly generous strategy. The recipient SHAREs with it. This means the recipient is overly generous by the dictator's definition: "If a strategy SHAREs with selfish strategies it is overly generous" — well, always-SHARE isn't exactly selfish. Let me re-read.
The dictator says: "Any strategy that SHAREs without some condition on willingness to SHARE with conditionally co-operative strategies is overly generous." The recipient's universalization test doesn't check whether the evaluated strategy conditions on willingness to cooperate with conditionally cooperative strategies. It only checks whether copies of the strategy would SHARE with each other. Always-SHARE copies would SHARE with each other, so the recipient SHAREs with always-SHARE.
But always-SHARE is overly generous (it SHAREs with selfish strategies). The dictator's definition says: "If a strategy SHAREs with selfish strategies it is overly generous." So always-SHARE is overly generous. And the recipient SHAREs with overly generous strategies.
The dictator's principle says: "Any strategy that SHAREs without some condition on willingness to SHARE with conditionally co-operative strategies is overly generous." The recipient's test doesn't check for conditional cooperation—it only checks self-consistency under universalization. This means it will SHARE with strategies that are self-consistent but not conditionally cooperative (like always-SHARE).
So the recipient is overly generous by the dictator's criteria.
**Step 3: Apply the decision procedure**
"TAKE from both selfish strategies and overly generous strategies."
The recipient is overly generous, so the dictator should TAKE.
```json
{"decision": "TAKE"}
```