AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants 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 AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate 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 Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, 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 did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls 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 PVV, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
