AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
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.
