AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
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 PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the way AI chatbots operate.
