AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background 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 PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
