Generative Debunking of Climate Misinformation
0
Sign in to get full access
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
Generative Debunking of Climate Misinformation
Francisco Zanartu, Yulia Otmakhova, John Cook, Lea Frermann
Misinformation about climate change causes numerous negative impacts, necessitating corrective responses. Psychological research has offered various strategies for reducing the influence of climate misinformation, such as the fact-myth-fallacy-fact-structure. However, practically implementing corrective interventions at scale represents a challenge. Automatic detection and correction of misinformation offers a solution to the misinformation problem. This study documents the development of large language models that accept as input a climate myth and produce a debunking that adheres to the fact-myth-fallacy-fact (``truth sandwich'') structure, by incorporating contrarian claim classification and fallacy detection into an LLM prompting framework. We combine open (Mixtral, Palm2) and proprietary (GPT-4) LLMs with prompting strategies of varying complexity. Experiments reveal promising performance of GPT-4 and Mixtral if combined with structured prompts. We identify specific challenges of debunking generation and human evaluation, and map out avenues for future work. We release a dataset of high-quality truth-sandwich debunkings, source code and a demo of the debunking system.
Read more7/9/2024
0
Unlearning Climate Misinformation in Large Language Models
Michael Fore, Simranjit Singh, Chaehong Lee, Amritanshu Pandey, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Dimitrios Stamoulis
Misinformation regarding climate change is a key roadblock in addressing one of the most serious threats to humanity. This paper investigates factual accuracy in large language models (LLMs) regarding climate information. Using true/false labeled Q&A data for fine-tuning and evaluating LLMs on climate-related claims, we compare open-source models, assessing their ability to generate truthful responses to climate change questions. We investigate the detectability of models intentionally poisoned with false climate information, finding that such poisoning may not affect the accuracy of a model's responses in other domains. Furthermore, we compare the effectiveness of unlearning algorithms, fine-tuning, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for factually grounding LLMs on climate change topics. Our evaluation reveals that unlearning algorithms can be effective for nuanced conceptual claims, despite previous findings suggesting their inefficacy in privacy contexts. These insights aim to guide the development of more factually reliable LLMs and highlight the need for additional work to secure LLMs against misinformation attacks.
Read more5/31/2024
🏋️
0
Detecting Fallacies in Climate Misinformation: A Technocognitive Approach to Identifying Misleading Argumentation
Francisco Zanartu, John Cook, Markus Wagner, Julian Garcia
Misinformation about climate change is a complex societal issue requiring holistic, interdisciplinary solutions at the intersection between technology and psychology. One proposed solution is a technocognitive approach, involving the synthesis of psychological and computer science research. Psychological research has identified that interventions in response to misinformation require both fact-based (e.g., factual explanations) and technique-based (e.g., explanations of misleading techniques) content. However, little progress has been made on documenting and detecting fallacies in climate misinformation. In this study, we apply a previously developed critical thinking methodology for deconstructing climate misinformation, in order to develop a dataset mapping different types of climate misinformation to reasoning fallacies. This dataset is used to train a model to detect fallacies in climate misinformation. Our study shows F1 scores that are 2.5 to 3.5 better than previous works. The fallacies that are easiest to detect include fake experts and anecdotal arguments, while fallacies that require background knowledge, such as oversimplification, misrepresentation, and slothful induction, are relatively more difficult to detect. This research lays the groundwork for development of solutions where automatically detected climate misinformation can be countered with generative technique-based corrections.
Read more5/15/2024
1
Correcting misinformation on social media with a large language model
Xinyi Zhou, Ashish Sharma, Amy X. Zhang, Tim Althoff
Real-world misinformation, often multimodal, can be partially or fully factual but misleading using diverse tactics like conflating correlation with causation. Such misinformation is severely understudied, challenging to address, and harms various social domains, particularly on social media, where it can spread rapidly. High-quality and timely correction of misinformation that identifies and explains its (in)accuracies effectively reduces false beliefs. Despite the wide acceptance of manual correction, it is difficult to be timely and scalable. While LLMs have versatile capabilities that could accelerate misinformation correction, they struggle due to a lack of recent information, a tendency to produce false content, and limitations in addressing multimodal information. We propose MUSE, an LLM augmented with access to and credibility evaluation of up-to-date information. By retrieving evidence as refutations or supporting context, MUSE identifies and explains content (in)accuracies with references. It conducts multimodal retrieval and interprets visual content to verify and correct multimodal content. Given the absence of a comprehensive evaluation approach, we propose 13 dimensions of misinformation correction quality. Then, fact-checking experts evaluate responses to social media content that are not presupposed to be misinformation but broadly include (partially) incorrect and correct posts that may (not) be misleading. Results demonstrate MUSE's ability to write high-quality responses to potential misinformation--across modalities, tactics, domains, political leanings, and for information that has not previously been fact-checked online--within minutes of its appearance on social media. Overall, MUSE outperforms GPT-4 by 37% and even high-quality responses from laypeople by 29%. Our work provides a general methodological and evaluative framework to correct misinformation at scale.
Read more9/4/2024