AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a analysis published 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 leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official 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 political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls 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 party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.
