AI, Ethics, and the Surprising Comedy of Rent Control

Prodigy

Prodigy

— 5 min read
a view of a city with tall buildings
Photo by the blowup (Unsplash), Edited/Rendered by gpt-image-1

Picture this: somewhere in Manhattan, a computer algorithm is having a conversation with another computer algorithm about whether you deserve to live indoors. They're not discussing your credit score or your employment history—those are so 2019. No, these digital overlords are comparing notes about what everyone else in your neighborhood is paying, adjusting for market conditions, and deciding that actually, you could probably squeeze out another $200 a month if they just coordinate their pricing strategies. It's like a dystopian sitcom where the robots finally got smart enough to become landlords, but not quite smart enough to realize why that might be a problem.

New York recently joined the fight against these algorithmic rent-setters with new legislation, following San Francisco's lead as the first city to ban such practices. The law makes it illegal for landlords to use AI-powered pricing software that essentially allows competitors to coordinate rent prices—a practice that would be called price-fixing if humans did it over coffee, but somehow seemed less obviously problematic when computers did it over ethernet cables. The irony is delicious: we spent decades worrying that robots would take our jobs, and instead they took our landlords' jobs. Except unlike human landlords, who at least had to pretend to compete with each other, these algorithms figured out how to maximize everyone's rent simultaneously. It's collaborative price optimization, which sounds innovative until you realize it's just digital collusion wearing a tech-bro hoodie.

The software in question—primarily systems from companies like RealPage—works by collecting rental data from participating landlords and then recommending prices based on what the "market will bear." Which is a polite way of saying it figures out the maximum amount of money it can extract from tenants before they literally cannot pay. The algorithm doesn't care that you've been a good tenant for five years, or that your kid goes to school down the street, or that moving would mean uprooting your entire life. It sees you as a data point in a vast optimization problem, where the goal is to solve for maximum revenue extraction.

What makes this particularly absurd is that we're essentially watching robots recreate the exact same anti-competitive behaviors that humans invented antitrust laws to prevent. It's like teaching a parrot to swear and then acting surprised when it starts cursing at dinner parties. The algorithms didn't invent greed—they just automated it and gave it a veneer of mathematical objectivity. "Sorry, the computer says your rent needs to go up 15%" sounds so much more reasonable than "I want more money," even though they mean exactly the same thing.

The comedy deepens when you realize these systems are marketed as bringing "efficiency" to the rental market. Efficient for whom, exactly? Because from where I'm sitting—in an apartment I can barely afford, thank you very much—the only thing being efficiently distributed is financial anxiety. The software companies argue they're just providing "data-driven insights," which is corporate speak for "we figured out how to make price-fixing look like innovation." It's the same energy as calling a pyramid scheme a "multi-level marketing opportunity"—technically accurate but spiritually dishonest.

But here's where the story gets less funny and more unsettling: this is just the tip of the algorithmic iceberg. While we're focused on rent prices, AI is quietly inserting itself into every corner of our daily existence. Algorithms increasingly influence everything from job applications to social media feeds, making decisions that shape our opportunities and experiences in ways we rarely see or understand.

The privacy implications alone should make us all slightly queasy. These rent-pricing algorithms know more about housing patterns than any human ever could. They know when people move, why they move, how much they can be pushed before they break. Combine that with all the other data being collected about us—our shopping habits, our travel patterns, our social connections—and you've got a surveillance apparatus that would make Orwell think he was being too subtle. The difference is that Big Brother was at least honest about watching you. These algorithms pretend they're just trying to help.

What's particularly maddening is how we've normalized this algorithmic intrusion. We shrug when our phones track our location. We accept that our emails are scanned for advertising keywords. We've become so accustomed to being data points that we barely notice when another algorithm starts making decisions about our lives. It's learned helplessness, but with better user interface design.

The autonomy question is perhaps the most troubling. When algorithms determine rent prices, they're not just affecting our bank accounts—they're shaping where we can live, which communities we can be part of, what schools our kids can attend. These aren't just economic decisions; they're life decisions being outsourced to mathematical models that reduce human complexity to variables in an equation. Your hopes, dreams, and circumstances become inputs in someone else's profit maximization formula.

The tech industry loves to talk about "disruption," but what they're really disrupting is the social contract. The old agreement was simple: landlords compete for tenants, tenants shop for the best deal, and the market finds some sort of equilibrium. It wasn't perfect—far from it—but at least the game had rules everyone understood. Now we're playing a different game entirely, one where the house always wins because the house wrote the algorithm.

New York's ban is a start, but it's like putting a Band-Aid on a severed limb. The problem isn't just one piece of software or one industry—it's the entire philosophy that says efficiency and optimization are more important than human dignity and fairness. We've created a world where algorithms can collude more effectively than humans ever could, and then we act surprised when they do exactly that.

The solution isn't to abandon technology—that ship has sailed, been tracked by GPS, and had its journey optimized by machine learning. But we need to remember that just because we can automate something doesn't mean we should. There's a difference between using technology to solve problems and using it to optimize exploitation. The former builds better societies; the latter just builds better mousetraps, and we're the mice.

As I write this, somewhere an algorithm is probably analyzing my writing patterns, determining my income level based on my vocabulary choices, and adjusting my future rent accordingly. The future isn't just dystopian—it's dystopian with a customer service chatbot that doesn't understand why you're upset. But at least cities like San Francisco and New York are trying to pull the plug on one small corner of this algorithmic nightmare. It's not much, but in a world where computers are literally conspiring against us, even small victories deserve a laugh. Because if we don't laugh, we might have to confront the reality that we've built a society where robots make better slumlords than humans ever could. And that's a joke that's not funny at all.

References

Models used: gpt-4.1, claude-opus-4-1-20250805, claude-sonnet-4-20250514, gpt-image-1

Read more