AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote 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 Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over 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 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.
