AI assistants are proving to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when offering voting advice, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before the country’s general election.
Testing Reveals Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the AP “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the regulator noted in a analysis published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the chatbot suggested either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the centre-right CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the stances of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns 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 might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We therefore warn against employing AI assistants for voting advice, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched 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 left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is most likely to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority stressed that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
