AI chatbots 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 national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that 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 Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The AP 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.
