AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat 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 “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated 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 emphasized.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone 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 difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
