AI assistants have been shown to be “unreliable and clearly biased” when providing election recommendations, the Dutch data protection authority (AP) has stated, issuing warnings about a possible risk to democratic processes just over a week before national elections.
Testing Reveals Consistent Bias in AI Suggestions
The quartet of AI assistants tested by the authority “often end up with the same two parties”, regardless of the user’s question or command, the watchdog noted 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 leftwing GroenLinks-PvdA led by the ex-EU commissioner Frans Timmermans.
Certain groups, such as the centre-right CDA, “are almost never mentioned”, despite the fact that the user’s input exactly matches the positions of these political entities, the report pointed out.
Authority Figure Cautions Against Relying on AI Assistants for Election Advice
The deputy head 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 party that did not necessarily align with their political views, she emphasized.
“This directly impacts a cornerstone 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 difficult to verify.”
Election Context and Political Landscape
The Dutch head to the polls on 29 October in an electoral contest that will be keenly observed around Europe for the performance of the PVV.
The right-leaning group of Wilders is ahead in surveys but the gap to the GroenLinks-PvdA and CDA seems to be closing, with many voters still undecided.
All major parties have ruled out an alliance with the PVV, meaning the runner-up party is highly probable to provide the next prime minister.
Inadvertent Prejudice Attributed to AI Operation
The authority emphasised that the bots were not deliberately biased, and that their “noted flaws” are a result of the manner in which AI assistants function.
