AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat 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 AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president 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 political entities, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated 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 ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The AP 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.
