AI assistants are proving to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has stated, raising alarms about a potential threat to democracy just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants evaluated by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, irrespective of the user’s question or command, the watchdog explained in a analysis released ahead of the 29 October election.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of the politician Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the former European Commission vice-president Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the voter’s query exactly matches the stances of these political entities, the study pointed out.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The deputy head of the AP, the official Monique Verdier, stated that while chatbots may seem like clever tools, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Citizens were being steered toward a party that might not correspond to their ideological beliefs, she added.
“This immediately affects 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 functioning is opaque and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the left-wing and centre-right parties appears to be narrowing, with many voters still undecided.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the Freedom party, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Unintentional Bias Attributed to AI Operation
The AP emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “noted flaws” are a consequence of the manner in which AI assistants function.
