AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated 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 ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects 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
The Dutch head to the polls 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 ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the way AI chatbots operate.
