AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
