AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, 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.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The AP emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
