AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, 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 progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner 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.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, 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 party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar 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 difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP 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.
