AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone 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 Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
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.
