AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
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 chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts 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 operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
