AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, 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 evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked 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.
