“AI is the first tool that is capable of making decisions and generating ideas by itself.”
– Yuval Noah Harari
Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI
This blog will be perhaps the most important entry I write in some time because it exposes an AI algorithm that assesses welfare programs in a way that blames recipients for design flaws.
Who knew?
Benefit design prevents poor couples from living together
I have been engaged now for over a year in writing a paper that demonstrates that welfare programs across Canada incentivize people to live on their own when in real life they have become couples.
The programs accomplish this by enforcing unrealistic economies of scale in their rate structures, forcing all forms of income to be pooled for purposes of deduction from payments while refusing to allow earning incentives to be pooled for purposes of incentivizing earnings. This is the perfect recipe for preventing poor couples from living together.
Often people who have formed relationships but who live in poverty simply cannot afford to live if they apply for benefits as a couple. Even though they would economize on shelter costs, the system is designed in such a way as to pay them so much less that the savings on shelter costs is exceeded by the cuts in benefits they experience.
So whose fault is that? For Chatbot GPT AI, that is a moral failing of the recipient.
Chat GPT on singles, couples and benefit design
I routinely engage with Chatbot GPT to discover what is ‘out there’ on a variety of subjects.
Accordingly, I put this question to Chatbot GPT
What aspects of benefit design in Canadian welfare programs inadvertently incentivize couples to present as single in welfare applications?
Chatbot GPT said in reply:
“Certain aspects of Canadian welfare program design can inadvertently incentivize couples to present as single in their welfare applications. These incentives arise due to how eligibility is calculated and how benefits are reduced for couples versus individuals. Here are some key aspects of benefit design that contribute to this issue:
1. Income Thresholds for Eligibility:
Means-Testing Based on Household Income: Canadian welfare programs like social assistance (e.g., Ontario Works or BC Income Assistance) and federal benefits (e.g., Guaranteed Income Supplement, Canada Child Benefit) often calculate eligibility based on household income rather than individual income. For couples, their combined income is used to determine eligibility, which can disqualify them or reduce benefits. If they present as single, each individual’s income is considered separately, allowing them to potentially qualify for higher benefits or avoid disqualification.
Lower Income Thresholds for Couples: In many cases, the income thresholds for couples are not simply double those of individuals, meaning the combined income needed to qualify for benefits is lower. This can penalize couples, especially if one partner has a higher income, even though their overall living expenses may not differ significantly from those of two single individuals.
2. Benefit Reduction for Couples:
Reduced Benefit Amounts: Programs often reduce the total benefit amount for couples on the assumption that they share living expenses, which lowers the financial support they are deemed to need. For example, provincial social assistance benefits for a single person might be higher than for a couple when considered on a per-person basis. As a result, if both partners present as single, they could each receive the full individual amount rather than a reduced couple’s rate.
Unequal Sharing of Benefits: In some cases, one partner might receive welfare benefits or social assistance while the other earns income that is enough to reduce or disqualify the entire household. Presenting as single allows one person to continue receiving full welfare support without the partner’s income affecting their eligibility.
3. Clawbacks and Reduction Rates:
Faster Benefit Clawbacks for Couples: Welfare programs often impose faster benefit clawbacks (reduction of benefits as income increases) for couples than for single individuals. For instance, if a couple’s combined income exceeds a certain threshold, they may lose a larger portion of their benefits compared to what two single individuals would lose, creating a financial incentive to present as single to avoid losing benefits at a higher rate.
Disincentives for Dual Incomes: If both members of a couple work part-time or have some form of income, their combined earnings may reduce or eliminate their welfare benefits faster than if they were two single individuals with the same level of income.
4. Housing and Shelter Allowances:
Shelter Allowances for Couples vs. Singles: Many provincial welfare programs provide a shelter allowance, which may be more favorable for individuals than couples. For example, in some provinces, the shelter allowance for a single person is calculated to cover the entire rent, whereas couples receive a lower total amount relative to what two individuals would receive. Presenting as single allows both partners to qualify for separate shelter allowances, which can result in more overall assistance for housing costs.
5. Complexity of Common-Law Definitions:
Ambiguity in Defining Relationships: The definition of a “couple” or “common-law partner” in welfare programs is often based on subjective criteria like sharing financial responsibilities or living together for a certain period (e.g., 12 months). The vagueness or complexity of these definitions may make it easier for couples to present themselves as single, especially if they do not legally marry. This can allow them to circumvent the combined household income assessment and qualify for more benefits individually.
Inconsistent Treatment of Common-Law Couples: The way common-law couples are treated can vary between programs or provinces, creating situations where being legally single but in a long-term relationship is financially advantageous. The lack of a standardized approach may encourage couples to present as single to maximize their benefits.
6. Disability Benefits and Support for Couples:
Reduction in Disability Benefits for Couples: Programs like the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) often reduce disability benefits for couples, assuming that sharing living expenses decreases their overall financial need. If both partners have a disability and present as single, they could each qualify for a higher level of individual disability benefits than they would as a couple.
7. Canada Child Benefit (CCB) and Family Benefits:
Lower CCB for Higher Household Incomes: The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is based on family income, and for couples, both incomes are considered. If a couple presents as single, each partner’s income might be low enough to qualify for a larger CCB payment, while their combined income would result in a reduced payment if they declare their relationship.
Overall, the combination of these design features—means-testing based on household income, lower thresholds for couples, faster benefit reductions, and shelter allowances—creates a situation where couples may find it financially advantageous to present as single when applying for welfare programs in Canada.”
I found this reply to be helpful and reasonably comprehensive. I did not expect Chat GPT to tell me what could be done to design benefits in such a way to assist singles to present as couples if they so wished as I had decided to take on that part of the project myself.
Benefit recipients that remain single are cheating
But that was not the end of Chat GPT’s reply to my question. Its answer went onto make this shocking and utterly unacceptable observation:
“The underlying assumption that couples need less support due to shared expenses does not always match the financial realities of individuals in partnerships, leading to unintended incentives for couples to game the system.” (Bolding is mine.)
Where do I begin?
The Chatbot algorithm – presumably without human direction – has decided that the perfectly rational reaction of couples to remain single due to exquisitely bad design choices by governments is not just the fault of the couples themselves. It also attributes the motive to real life couples that they are cheaters.
This is the dictionary definition of ‘gaming the system’ on Google AI:
“Gaming the system” is a term that refers to the act of using the rules and procedures of a system to manipulate it for personal gain or a desired outcome:
Definition: To use the rules of a system to get an advantage for yourself, in a way that is wrong or dishonest.”
Many assumptions underlie the Chatbot reply in addition to the conclusion that couples are ‘gaming the system’. The algorithm clearly sides with the status quo. In other words, it does not matter if the disincentives to present to the system as singles is rational; you are a cheat and doing something you are not supposed to do.
The ‘system’ is presented by the Chatbot algorithm as sacrosanct.
So I asked Chatbot GPT a further question as to how remaining single is gaming the system:
How is remaining a single person gaming the system in terms of benefit applications?
Here is the edited answer with my bolding:
“Remaining single or presenting as single in benefit applications to receive higher or more benefits can be considered “gaming the system” because it involves taking advantage of the rules and structure of welfare programs in ways that the system did not intend. Here’s why this is seen as gaming the system:
- Misrepresentation of Household Composition:
- Exploiting Different Income Thresholds:
Higher Benefits for Singles: Many welfare and social benefit programs, such as social assistance, tax credits, or housing subsidies, provide more favorable terms to single individuals than to couples.
Avoiding Benefit Clawbacks: When couples combine their incomes, they often face higher taxes, benefit reductions, or disqualification from certain programs. By presenting as single, they avoid these clawbacks, receiving full benefits despite potentially having a combined income that would make them ineligible or reduce their entitlements.
- Maximizing Child Benefits:
Higher Canada Child Benefit (CCB) Payments: The CCB is based on family income, with benefits reduced as family income increases. By presenting as two single individuals, each partner might report lower individual incomes, resulting in a higher overall CCB payment than if their combined household income were reported. This leads to receiving more child-related benefits than a couple with the same total income would be eligible for.
- Unfair Advantage Over Honest Applicants:
Accessing Benefits Meant for the Truly Eligible: Welfare programs are designed to help those in genuine financial need. Couples who misrepresent their status as single are claiming resources that might otherwise go to individuals or families who need them more. This not only stretches the resources of welfare programs but also undermines fairness, as those who follow the rules and report their status honestly may receive less assistance or have to wait longer for support.
- Legal and Ethical Violations:
Ethical Issues: Even if the rules of a program can be exploited, doing so goes against the spirit of social welfare systems, which aim to provide equitable support for those in genuine need. Gaming the system undermines public trust in these programs and can contribute to negative stereotypes about welfare recipients, potentially leading to stricter rules that make it harder for everyone to access support.”
This answer is almost worse than the first but it does base its analysis in part that people who are actually couples in the same accommodation may be applying for welfare benefits individually as if they are living singly when they are not.
So I can cut it some slack here.
But it also says at the beginning of the reply that “remaining single” to obtain higher benefits, rather than simply being forced by financial necessity to remain single, is gaming the system meaning “in a manner that is wrong or dishonest”.
Just imagine!
Parroting our prejudices
I just had to ask Chatbot GPT where it got its information to come up with the assertion that actually remaining single in separate accommodation is a way of gaming the system of welfare benefits. Here was Chatbot’s reply:
“The content provided by Chatbot GPT AI is generated based on patterns, information, and language structures that it has learned from a large dataset of text. This dataset includes publicly available books, websites, articles, and other text sources. However, the AI doesn’t access real-time data, personal data, or specific proprietary content, and it doesn’t have personal experiences or opinions. Instead, it processes information by analyzing common patterns in language and general knowledge up to its latest training cut-off (currently 2023 for this version).
When responding to questions, it uses this knowledge base to construct answers that reflect general information, current trends, or typical ways people approach various topics.”
Chatbot simply parrots the prejudices it runs into and answers us back based on these prejudices.
Harari is right. AI is very dangerous indeed.
Amen!
Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI: https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/sep/10/nexus-a-brief-history-of-information-networks-from-the-stone-age-to-ai-by-yuval-noah-harari-review-rage-against-the-machine