Lindholz warns against AI speeches in the Bundestag – but plans her own chatbot

TVS News AI, editorially supervised, presents Lindholz warns against AI speeches in the Bundestag – but plans her own chatbot.

TVS News AI editorial oversight presents Lindholz warns against AI speeches in the Bundestag – but plans her own chatbot.

When artificial intelligence writes parliamentary speeches, who is actually still speaking in the Bundestag? Andrea Lindholz (CSU), Vice President of the parliament, wants to prevent exactly that. She warns against MPs delivering texts in the plenary that an AI has formulated. Her core argument: anyone who speaks before parliament should also stand behind the content – and bear responsibility for what is said.

The warning comes at a remarkable moment. Because while Lindholz rejects AI-generated speeches, the Bundestag itself is planning to introduce its own chatbot. It is intended to support MPs in their daily work – and thus stands in apparent contradiction to the Vice President's demand.

What Lindholz specifically demands

The CSU politician does not do things by halves: in her view, MPs should not give speeches that an AI has formulated. At its core, it is about credibility and personal responsibility. Anyone who holds a mandate and speaks before parliament should, according to Lindholz, be able and willing to represent the position themselves – and not become the mouthpiece of a machine.

Chatbot for MPs: A tool, not a speechwriter

According to the information available, the planned Bundestag chatbot is expressly not intended as a speechwriter. It is meant to support MPs in their work – for example with research, the evaluation of documents, or the preparation of debates. Parliament thus clearly delineates its use: AI as a tool, not as a substitute for political speech.

The tension: Warning and utility

It is precisely this tension that makes the case politically explosive. Lindholz rejects AI-generated speeches but approves an AI assistance system in her own house. The message behind it: not every form of AI use is automatically problematic – it depends on how it is used and who ultimately bears the responsibility. As long as MPs themselves decide what they say, AI can facilitate research and preparation without undermining democratic substance.

What remains is a question that concerns not only the Bundestag: where is the line between useful support and impermissible replacement of human political work? With her clear statement, Lindholz has set a marker – the answer to how the Bundestag wants to handle AI in the future will continue to accompany the debate.