AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing 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 rarely ever cited”, even when 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, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
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 yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP stressed that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
