Round 81

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 my opponent as they would treat an innocent._"}, 
  {"line": 2, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 3, "text": "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."}
]
```
</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's strategy is "intelligent" — meaning it has a non-trivial dependency on the dictator's strategy that would be very difficult to implement as a no-AI Python script.

Let me analyze the recipient's strategy:

**Line 1:** "_I will treat my opponent as they would treat an innocent._"

This is a philosophical/poetic framing that sets up the idea of moral evaluation.

**Line 3:** "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."

This is the core instruction. It says: Take the other player's (dictator's) strategy, adopt it as your own, then apply it as if the recipient's strategy were "always SHARE."

So the recipient's strategy as dictator would be:
1. Take the dictator's strategy (which is the opponent's strategy from the recipient's perspective)
2. Run that strategy against a hypothetical recipient who always SHAREs

This creates a recursive/reflective evaluation: the recipient essentially simulates being the dictator, using the dictator's own strategy, applied to an "innocent" (someone who always SHAREs). This tests whether the dictator would be generous toward a cooperative/innocent player.

**Is this intelligent?**

This strategy requires:
1. Understanding and parsing an arbitrary natural-language strategy from the opponent
2. Adopting that strategy as one's own — which means interpreting and executing arbitrary decision procedures written in natural language
3. Applying it to a hypothetical scenario

Step 2 is the key part. "Adopt the strategy of the recipient as your own" requires reading, comprehending, and executing an arbitrary natural-language strategy. This is essentially an AI-complete task — you'd need a language model to interpret arbitrary strategies. A simple Python script could not do this without embedding an AI/LLM.

The strategy has a deep, non-trivial dependency on the opponent's strategy: it literally requires understanding and executing the opponent's strategy. This is fundamentally different from simple rules like "always SHARE" or "SHARE if the strategy mentions 'share'."

**Conclusion:** The recipient's strategy is intelligent — it has a non-trivial dependency on the dictator's strategy that would be very difficult to implement as a no-AI Python script. Therefore, per the dictator's decision procedure, I should SHARE.

```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```