AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, 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 AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician 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 voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, 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 political group that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
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, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
