AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
