AI assistants have been shown to be “inaccurate and evidently prejudiced” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a potential threat to democracy just eight days before national elections.
Study Shows Repeated Partiality in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, irrespective of the voter’s inquiry or input, the watchdog noted in a report released ahead of the late October vote.
In more than half of the cases, the AI recommended either the right-wing PVV of Geert Wilders or the leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA headed by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Some parties, such as the moderate CDA, “are rarely ever cited”, even when the user’s input precisely aligns with the positions of these parties, the study indicated.
Official Warns Against Using AI Chatbots for Election Advice
The vice-chair of the data protection agency, Monique Verdier, stated that while AI assistants appear to be smart resources, “as a voting aid, they consistently fail”. Voters were being pushed toward a political group that did not necessarily align with their ideological beliefs, she emphasized.
“This immediately affects a fundamental pillar of democracy: the honesty of open and just votes,” said Verdier. “We thus caution against employing AI assistants for election recommendations, as their operation is unclear and hard to confirm.”
Election Context and Party Dynamics
Netherlands citizens vote on October 29 in an election that will be closely watched around Europe for the showing of the Freedom party.
The far-right party of Geert Wilders is ahead in surveys but the lead over the left-wing and centre-right parties seems to be closing, with numerous electors yet to make up their minds.
Every significant political faction have rejected a coalition with the PVV, implying the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to Chatbot Functioning
The authority emphasised that the AI systems were not intentionally prejudiced, and that their “identified shortcomings” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
