AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The AP 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.
