AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, 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 provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
