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 possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
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 regulator explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led 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 positions of these political entities, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented 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 emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
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.
