AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report published 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 headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official 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 did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
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 still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
