AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, 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 did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
