AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group 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 using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed across the continent 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 numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, implying the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP 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.