AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the study pointed out.
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, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
