AI chatbots 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 possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group 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,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.
