AI chatbots have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Netherlands’ data watchdog has reported, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Study Shows Consistent Bias in Chatbot Recommendations
The four chatbots tested by the authority “frequently recommend identical two parties”, regardless of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a analysis published ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the far-right Freedom party (PVV) of Geert Wilders or the progressive GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, 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 Relying on AI Assistants for Voting Guidance
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, the official Monique Verdier, commented that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone of democracy: the integrity of free and fair elections,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against using AI chatbots for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The far-right party of Wilders is leading the polls but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is most likely to supply the future head of government.
Unintentional Bias Linked 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.
