AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the regulator noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects 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 operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched 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.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
