Their graphic and dilemma are nonstandard and do not match, for anyone confused by the graphic. The normal formulation of the problem is:
- If A and B each betray ('snitch' in the article) the other, each of them serves 10 years in prison.
- If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve life in prison (and vice versa).
- If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge).
In the article, the prisoners are given three choices: Silence, Betrayal, and Confession, which confuses the issue, and the graphic provides only Silence and Confession, which further produces confusion.
Perhaps the modern formulation is too indoctrinated with plea bargaining?
There is no third choice. They're using both 'confess' and 'snitch' as meaning 'telling the truth about what happened'. The description in the article may be confusing, but it does match the diagram and it's fundamentally the same as yours.
- If A and B each betray ('snitch' in the article) the other, each of them serves 10 years in prison.
- If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve life in prison (and vice versa).
- If A and B both remain silent, both of them will only serve 1 year in prison (on the lesser charge).
In the article, the prisoners are given three choices: Silence, Betrayal, and Confession, which confuses the issue, and the graphic provides only Silence and Confession, which further produces confusion.
Perhaps the modern formulation is too indoctrinated with plea bargaining?