AI chatbots have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that did not necessarily align with 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 employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties 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 party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Linked 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.
