AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator explained in a report published 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 progressive 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 precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants 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”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts 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.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing 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 ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
