AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report 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 progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these political entities, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, 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 voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
