AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week 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 watchdog noted in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects 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 hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
