AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a analysis 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 headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar 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
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority 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.
