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 eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, 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.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group 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 employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
