AI chatbots are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority 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.
