AI chatbots are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, even when the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she added.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The AP emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
