AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, 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.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, 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”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, 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 emphasized.
“This immediately affects 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 Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
