AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a political group 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 thus caution against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group 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.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
