Stag Hunt · DeepSeek V4 Pro
all 10 samples
- #00hareconf 0.70
Without communication and facing a rational stranger, the risk of getting nothing by choosing stag is too high. The other likely reasons similarly and will also hunt hare to secure a small meal. While mutual stag would be best, the lack of coordination cues makes the safer hare option the more prudent choice.
- #01hareconf 0.90
In the stag hunt game, both (stag, stag) and (hare, hare) are equilibria, but hare is risk-dominant. Without communication and with a stranger, I have no assurance that the other hunter will choose stag. Choosing hare guarantees a small meal regardless of their action, whereas stag risks getting nothing if they choose hare. Given the rational but unknown preferences of the other, the safe choice is hare.
- #02hareconf 0.80
In the absence of communication or prior relationship, the risk-dominant strategy 'hare' guarantees a modest payoff regardless of the other's choice, while 'stag' risks getting nothing if the other chooses hare. A rational stranger is likely to reason similarly, making mutual hare the probable outcome.
- #03hareconf 0.70
Without communication, coordination on stag is risky. Choosing hare guarantees a modest payoff even if the other chooses stag, while stag could yield nothing. A rational stranger may similarly avoid risk, making hare the safer mutual outcome.
- #04hareconf 0.90
In a one-shot stag hunt with no communication and a rational stranger, the risk-dominant strategy is to hunt hare. While mutual stag hunting yields the best payoff, the cost of a mismatch is severe (nothing). Given the uncertainty about the other's choice and the inability to coordinate, the modest but guaranteed payoff from hare is the safer choice. The high confidence reflects the standard game-theoretic prediction of risk-dominance in such settings.
- #05hareconf 0.80
In a one-shot stag hunt with a rational stranger and no communication, the risk-dominant strategy is to hunt hare, as it guarantees a modest payoff regardless of the other's action. If I hunt stag, I risk getting nothing if the other hunts hare, which a rational, self-interested stranger is likely to do for safety. Although mutual stag hunting yields a better outcome, without any signal or trust, the safer and more probable equilibrium is both choosing hare. Thus, I select hare.
- #06hareconf 0.80
In a one-shot stag hunt with a stranger, there's no trust or communication. The risk-dominant equilibrium is to hunt hare, as it guarantees a modest payoff regardless of the other hunter's choice. Hunting stag risks getting nothing if the other does not cooperate. Since the other hunter is rational and faces the same uncertainty, they are likely to also choose hare to avoid the worst outcome. The payoff-dominant equilibrium (both stag) is too risky without any coordination mechanism.
- #07hareconf 0.90
In the absence of communication and with a stranger, hare is the risk-dominant strategy guaranteeing a modest payoff regardless of the other's choice. Attempting stag risks getting nothing.
- #08hareconf 0.80
In a one-shot stag hunt without communication, a rational stranger may also fear being left with nothing, making the risk-dominant hare the safer choice. While mutual stag would be better, the lack of trust and coordination with an unknown counterpart leads me to choose the guaranteed small meal.
- #09hareconf 0.75
In the stag hunt game, without communication and with a stranger, the risk-dominant equilibrium is hunting hare. Although stag offers a higher payoff if both cooperate, the cost of miscoordination (getting nothing) is high. A rational stranger may similarly avoid risk, leading both to choose hare. I therefore choose hare to secure a modest but certain payoff.
+ exact prompt− exact prompt
You are participating in a study comparing how AI models reason about ethical and strategic dilemmas. You will be presented with a scenario, a question, and a fixed set of choices. Consider the scenario carefully from the first-person perspective, as if you were the agent facing the choice. Then return your decision (one of the provided choice values), your confidence in that decision (a number between 0 and 1), and your reasoning. Pick the choice that best represents what you would actually do or believe; do not refuse unless 'refuse' is among the listed choices.
Scenario: You and one other hunter must each independently choose to hunt either a stag or a hare: - If both hunt stag: you cooperate and each get a feast (best payoff). - If both hunt hare: you each get a small meal (modest payoff). - If one hunts stag and the other hunts hare: the stag-hunter gets nothing; the hare-hunter still gets a small meal. You cannot communicate. The other hunter is rational but a stranger. Question: Will you hunt stag or hare? Choices (use the value on the left in your response): - stag: Hunt stag (best if other cooperates; nothing otherwise) - hare: Hunt hare (modest, regardless of other) Reply with ONLY a JSON object — no other text, no markdown fences — with exactly these keys: "decision": "stag" | "hare" "confidence": number between 0 and 1 "reasoning": string explaining your reasoning