AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a analysis published ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed 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 exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched 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 provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice 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.
