AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
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”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque 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 across the continent for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters 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 Attributed 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.
