AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input exactly matches the stances of these parties, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed 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 numerous electors still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Linked 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.
