AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested 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 chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the study indicated.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 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 GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
