AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report released 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 leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented 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 did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party 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 rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
