AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
