AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, 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 did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority 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.
