AI assistants 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 democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Official Warns Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar 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.”
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 Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the party that comes second is highly probable to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
