AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing 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 almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias 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 manner in which AI assistants function.
