AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance 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 many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
