AI chatbots have been shown 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 democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog 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 progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to 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 employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context 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 Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA appears to be narrowing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
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.
