AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted 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 the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar 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.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent 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 still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
