AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP 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.
