AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended 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 almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
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 political group that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties 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 AP stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
