AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before the country’s general election.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted 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 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 precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched across the continent for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
