AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, 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 evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a analysis released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these political entities, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated 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 added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
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.
