Well-intentioned laws become distorted through layers of interpretation down the chain of command. This 'cascade of rigidity' results in practices that are inefficient and sometimes contrary to the original legal intent, creating perverse outcomes and process bottlenecks.
The failure of government systems isn't a 'set it and forget it' problem. Rather, it's a 'set it and accrete' problem. New rules, processes, and technologies are continuously layered on top of old ones for decades without ever subtracting anything, resulting in unmanageable, brittle systems.
AI tools can act as 'bureaucratic archeologists,' allowing public servants to quickly trace the origins of entrenched, inefficient rules. This empowers them to differentiate between actual law and outdated interpretations, enabling reform from within by asking the right questions.
When investigating recurring government failures, especially in technology, the root cause is frequently a broken HR or hiring process. The inability to hire and retain key talent is the underlying issue that prevents mission-critical problems from being solved. As Jennifer Pahlka says, 'it was workforce all along.'
Instead of only using AI to help people comply with complex regulations, its real power lies in helping policymakers simplify them. AI can analyze thousands of pages of rules to identify what is vestigial, conflicting, or redundant, enabling the simplification required for scalable government services.
The government's core model for funding, oversight, and talent management is a relic of the post-WWII industrial era. Slapping modern technology like AI onto this outdated 'operating system' is a recipe for failure. A fundamental backend overhaul is required, not just a frontend facelift.
AI is more than a tool for modernizing government services. It's a disruptive force that changes society's needs, compelling government to ask if its existing programs are even the right ones. For instance, is unemployment insurance the correct response to permanent, AI-driven job displacement?
Citing economist Ed Glaeser's 'capacity eats policy for a light snack,' the core argument is that the government's ability to execute—having the right people with the right skills—is a far greater determinant of success than the policy itself. Lacking execution capacity dooms even the best-laid plans.
The government's budgeting approach is often 'penny-wise, pound-foolish,' focusing on small, isolated cuts without a systems view. Cutting a seemingly minor budget, like the ID card office, can create a massive bottleneck for the entire organization, costing hundreds of millions in lost productivity to save a few million.