AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, 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 supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
