AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP 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.
