AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive 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 precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias 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.
