AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, 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 Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, 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.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input 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, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice 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.