AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head 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 political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
