AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a possible risk to democratic processes just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a report published ahead of the 29 October election.
For over 50% of instances, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of 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 precisely aligns with the stances of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “for election guidance, they repeatedly fall short”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Voting Background and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be keenly observed across the continent for the performance of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is leading the polls but the lead over the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party 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 result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
