AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a analysis released 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 centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority 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.
