AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democracy just over a week before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted in a analysis published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the report indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Voting Guidance
The deputy head of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” Verdier stated. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for voting advice, as their functioning is opaque and hard to confirm.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched across the continent for the performance of the Freedom party.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is leading the polls 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 rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
