AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended 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.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The AP 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.
