AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that 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 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”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters 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 supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the way AI chatbots operate.
