AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots evaluated by the AP “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a analysis released ahead of the late October vote.
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 headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, the official 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 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 functioning is opaque 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 around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Wilders is ahead in surveys 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 PVV, implying the party that comes second is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The AP 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.
