Exploring the Capability of ChatGPT to Reproduce Human Labels for Social Computing Tasks (Extended Version)
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the ability of the language model ChatGPT to reproduce human-generated labels for social computing tasks.
- The researchers investigate ChatGPT's performance on a variety of social computing tasks, including toxicity detection, sentiment analysis, and topic classification.
- They compare ChatGPT's outputs to human-generated labels, examining the model's accuracy, consistency, and potential biases.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines how well the AI system ChatGPT can mimic human judgments on various social media analysis tasks. The researchers wanted to see if ChatGPT could accurately label things like whether an online comment is toxic, what the sentiment is, or what the main topic is. They compared ChatGPT's results to labels made by real people to see how close the AI's answers were. This helps understand ChatGPT's capabilities and limitations when it comes to interpreting and categorizing social content, which is an important task for monitoring online communities and recommending content.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted experiments to assess how well ChatGPT can reproduce human-generated labels for a range of social computing tasks. They tested the model's performance on toxicity detection, sentiment analysis, and topic classification using publicly available datasets.
For each task, they collected human-annotated labels and then had ChatGPT generate its own labels for the same data. They compared the model's outputs to the ground truth human labels, measuring accuracy, consistency, and potential biases. The researchers also explored the impact of task formulation and prompt engineering on ChatGPT's performance.
The results indicate that ChatGPT can often match or approach human-level accuracy on these social computing tasks. However, the model also exhibits some systematic biases and inconsistencies, particularly for more nuanced or subjective judgments. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for using large language models like ChatGPT in social computing applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and rigorous evaluation of ChatGPT's capabilities for social computing tasks. However, the researchers acknowledge several limitations of their work. First, the datasets used may not fully capture the diversity and complexity of real-world social media content. Second, the prompts and task formulations may have biased ChatGPT's responses in ways that don't reflect its true underlying capabilities.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into potential fairness and ethical concerns that could arise from using large language models like ChatGPT for sensitive social analysis tasks. There may be risks of amplifying human biases or making decisions that have significant impacts on individuals or communities.
Further research is needed to better understand the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriate use cases for employing ChatGPT and similar models in social computing applications. Continued critical examination of these systems' capabilities and limitations is crucial as they become more widely adopted.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT's performance on a range of social computing tasks, including toxicity detection, sentiment analysis, and topic classification. The results suggest that the model can often match or approach human-level accuracy on these types of judgments, but also exhibits systematic biases and inconsistencies, particularly for more nuanced or subjective assessments.
The findings have important implications for the use of large language models like ChatGPT in social computing applications and content moderation systems. While these models show promise, careful consideration of their limitations and potential risks is necessary to ensure their responsible and ethical deployment. Ongoing research and critical analysis will be essential as the capabilities of these systems continue to evolve.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Exploring the Capability of ChatGPT to Reproduce Human Labels for Social Computing Tasks (Extended Version)
Yiming Zhu, Peixian Zhang, Ehsan-Ul Haq, Pan Hui, Gareth Tyson
Harnessing the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can help address social challenges through inclusive, ethical, and sustainable means. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which ChatGPT can annotate data for social computing tasks, aiming to reduce the complexity and cost of undertaking web research. To evaluate ChatGPT's potential, we re-annotate seven datasets using ChatGPT, covering topics related to pressing social issues like COVID-19 misinformation, social bot deception, cyberbully, clickbait news, and the Russo-Ukrainian War. Our findings demonstrate that ChatGPT exhibits promise in handling these data annotation tasks, albeit with some challenges. Across the seven datasets, ChatGPT achieves an average annotation F1-score of 72.00%. Its performance excels in clickbait news annotation, correctly labeling 89.66% of the data. However, we also observe significant variations in performance across individual labels. Our study reveals predictable patterns in ChatGPT's annotation performance. Thus, we propose GPT-Rater, a tool to predict if ChatGPT can correctly label data for a given annotation task. Researchers can use this to identify where ChatGPT might be suitable for their annotation requirements. We show that GPT-Rater effectively predicts ChatGPT's performance. It performs best on a clickbait headlines dataset by achieving an average F1-score of 95.00%. We believe that this research opens new avenues for analysis and can reduce barriers to engaging in social computing research.
Read more7/10/2024
🎲
0
Can we trust the evaluation on ChatGPT?
Rachith Aiyappa, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, Yong-Yeol Ahn
ChatGPT, the first large language model (LLM) with mass adoption, has demonstrated remarkable performance in numerous natural language tasks. Despite its evident usefulness, evaluating ChatGPT's performance in diverse problem domains remains challenging due to the closed nature of the model and its continuous updates via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). We highlight the issue of data contamination in ChatGPT evaluations, with a case study of the task of stance detection. We discuss the challenge of preventing data contamination and ensuring fair model evaluation in the age of closed and continuously trained models.
Read more8/23/2024
0
New!Keeping Humans in the Loop: Human-Centered Automated Annotation with Generative AI
Nicholas Pangakis, Samuel Wolken
Automated text annotation is a compelling use case for generative large language models (LLMs) in social media research. Recent work suggests that LLMs can achieve strong performance on annotation tasks; however, these studies evaluate LLMs on a small number of tasks and likely suffer from contamination due to a reliance on public benchmark datasets. Here, we test a human-centered framework for responsibly evaluating artificial intelligence tools used in automated annotation. We use GPT-4 to replicate 27 annotation tasks across 11 password-protected datasets from recently published computational social science articles in high-impact journals. For each task, we compare GPT-4 annotations against human-annotated ground-truth labels and against annotations from separate supervised classification models fine-tuned on human-generated labels. Although the quality of LLM labels is generally high, we find significant variation in LLM performance across tasks, even within datasets. Our findings underscore the importance of a human-centered workflow and careful evaluation standards: Automated annotations significantly diverge from human judgment in numerous scenarios, despite various optimization strategies such as prompt tuning. Grounding automated annotation in validation labels generated by humans is essential for responsible evaluation.
Read more9/17/2024
0
ChatGPT as Research Scientist: Probing GPT's Capabilities as a Research Librarian, Research Ethicist, Data Generator and Data Predictor
Steven A. Lehr, Aylin Caliskan, Suneragiri Liyanage, Mahzarin R. Banaji
How good a research scientist is ChatGPT? We systematically probed the capabilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 across four central components of the scientific process: as a Research Librarian, Research Ethicist, Data Generator, and Novel Data Predictor, using psychological science as a testing field. In Study 1 (Research Librarian), unlike human researchers, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 hallucinated, authoritatively generating fictional references 36.0% and 5.4% of the time, respectively, although GPT-4 exhibited an evolving capacity to acknowledge its fictions. In Study 2 (Research Ethicist), GPT-4 (though not GPT-3.5) proved capable of detecting violations like p-hacking in fictional research protocols, correcting 88.6% of blatantly presented issues, and 72.6% of subtly presented issues. In Study 3 (Data Generator), both models consistently replicated patterns of cultural bias previously discovered in large language corpora, indicating that ChatGPT can simulate known results, an antecedent to usefulness for both data generation and skills like hypothesis generation. Contrastingly, in Study 4 (Novel Data Predictor), neither model was successful at predicting new results absent in their training data, and neither appeared to leverage substantially new information when predicting more versus less novel outcomes. Together, these results suggest that GPT is a flawed but rapidly improving librarian, a decent research ethicist already, capable of data generation in simple domains with known characteristics but poor at predicting novel patterns of empirical data to aid future experimentation.
Read more6/24/2024