AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator explained 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 former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official 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 immediately affects a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
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 PVV.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias 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.
