🔗 Share this article

AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.

Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions

The four chatbots 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 published ahead of the late October vote.

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 moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the report pointed out.

Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice

The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.

“This immediately affects 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 Political Landscape

The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the showing of the PVV.

The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, 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 supply the future head of government.

Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation

The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.