"HOT" ChatGPT:ChatGPT 在检测和鉴别社交媒体上的仇恨、攻击性和有毒评论方面的前景

IF 2.6 4区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS ACM Transactions on the Web Pub Date : 2024-02-02 DOI:10.1145/3643829
Lingyao Li, Lizhou Fan, Shubham Atreja, Libby Hemphill
{"title":"\"HOT\" ChatGPT:ChatGPT 在检测和鉴别社交媒体上的仇恨、攻击性和有毒评论方面的前景","authors":"Lingyao Li, Lizhou Fan, Shubham Atreja, Libby Hemphill","doi":"10.1145/3643829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Harmful textual content is pervasive on social media, poisoning online communities and negatively impacting participation. A common approach to this issue is developing detection models that rely on human annotations. However, the tasks required to build such models expose annotators to harmful and offensive content and may require significant time and cost to complete. Generative AI models have the potential to understand and detect harmful textual content. We used ChatGPT to investigate this potential and compared its performance with MTurker annotations for three frequently discussed concepts related to harmful textual content on social media: Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic (HOT). We designed five prompts to interact with ChatGPT and conducted four experiments eliciting HOT classifications. Our results show that ChatGPT can achieve an accuracy of approximately 80% when compared to MTurker annotations. Specifically, the model displays a more consistent classification for non-HOT comments than HOT comments compared to human annotations. Our findings also suggest that ChatGPT classifications align with the provided HOT definitions. However, ChatGPT classifies “hateful” and “offensive” as subsets of “toxic.” Moreover, the choice of prompts used to interact with ChatGPT impacts its performance. Based on these insights, our study provides several meaningful implications for employing ChatGPT to detect HOT content, particularly regarding the reliability and consistency of its performance, its understanding and reasoning of the HOT concept, and the impact of prompts on its performance. Overall, our study provides guidance on the potential of using generative AI models for moderating large volumes of user-generated textual content on social media.</p>","PeriodicalId":50940,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on the Web","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“HOT” ChatGPT: The Promise of ChatGPT in Detecting and Discriminating Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic Comments on Social Media\",\"authors\":\"Lingyao Li, Lizhou Fan, Shubham Atreja, Libby Hemphill\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3643829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Harmful textual content is pervasive on social media, poisoning online communities and negatively impacting participation. A common approach to this issue is developing detection models that rely on human annotations. However, the tasks required to build such models expose annotators to harmful and offensive content and may require significant time and cost to complete. Generative AI models have the potential to understand and detect harmful textual content. We used ChatGPT to investigate this potential and compared its performance with MTurker annotations for three frequently discussed concepts related to harmful textual content on social media: Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic (HOT). We designed five prompts to interact with ChatGPT and conducted four experiments eliciting HOT classifications. Our results show that ChatGPT can achieve an accuracy of approximately 80% when compared to MTurker annotations. Specifically, the model displays a more consistent classification for non-HOT comments than HOT comments compared to human annotations. Our findings also suggest that ChatGPT classifications align with the provided HOT definitions. However, ChatGPT classifies “hateful” and “offensive” as subsets of “toxic.” Moreover, the choice of prompts used to interact with ChatGPT impacts its performance. Based on these insights, our study provides several meaningful implications for employing ChatGPT to detect HOT content, particularly regarding the reliability and consistency of its performance, its understanding and reasoning of the HOT concept, and the impact of prompts on its performance. Overall, our study provides guidance on the potential of using generative AI models for moderating large volumes of user-generated textual content on social media.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACM Transactions on the Web\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACM Transactions on the Web\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3643829\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on the Web","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3643829","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有害的文字内容在社交媒体上无处不在,毒害着网络社区并对参与产生负面影响。解决这一问题的常见方法是开发依赖于人类注释的检测模型。然而,建立此类模型所需的任务会让注释者接触到有害和攻击性内容,可能需要花费大量时间和成本才能完成。生成式人工智能模型具有理解和检测有害文本内容的潜力。我们使用 ChatGPT 对这一潜力进行了研究,并针对社交媒体上与有害文本内容相关的三个经常被讨论的概念,将其性能与 MTurker 注释进行了比较:仇恨性、攻击性和毒性(HOT)。我们设计了五种与 ChatGPT 互动的提示,并进行了四次 HOT 分类实验。结果表明,与 MTurker 注释相比,ChatGPT 的准确率约为 80%。具体来说,与人工注释相比,该模型对非 HOT 评论的分类比对 HOT 评论的分类更一致。我们的研究结果还表明,ChatGPT 的分类与所提供的 HOT 定义一致。不过,ChatGPT 将 "仇恨性 "和 "攻击性 "归类为 "毒性 "的子集。此外,用于与 ChatGPT 互动的提示的选择也会影响其性能。基于这些见解,我们的研究为使用 ChatGPT 检测 HOT 内容提供了一些有意义的启示,特别是在其性能的可靠性和一致性、对 HOT 概念的理解和推理以及提示对其性能的影响方面。总之,我们的研究为使用生成式人工智能模型调节社交媒体上大量用户生成的文本内容提供了指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“HOT” ChatGPT: The Promise of ChatGPT in Detecting and Discriminating Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic Comments on Social Media

Harmful textual content is pervasive on social media, poisoning online communities and negatively impacting participation. A common approach to this issue is developing detection models that rely on human annotations. However, the tasks required to build such models expose annotators to harmful and offensive content and may require significant time and cost to complete. Generative AI models have the potential to understand and detect harmful textual content. We used ChatGPT to investigate this potential and compared its performance with MTurker annotations for three frequently discussed concepts related to harmful textual content on social media: Hateful, Offensive, and Toxic (HOT). We designed five prompts to interact with ChatGPT and conducted four experiments eliciting HOT classifications. Our results show that ChatGPT can achieve an accuracy of approximately 80% when compared to MTurker annotations. Specifically, the model displays a more consistent classification for non-HOT comments than HOT comments compared to human annotations. Our findings also suggest that ChatGPT classifications align with the provided HOT definitions. However, ChatGPT classifies “hateful” and “offensive” as subsets of “toxic.” Moreover, the choice of prompts used to interact with ChatGPT impacts its performance. Based on these insights, our study provides several meaningful implications for employing ChatGPT to detect HOT content, particularly regarding the reliability and consistency of its performance, its understanding and reasoning of the HOT concept, and the impact of prompts on its performance. Overall, our study provides guidance on the potential of using generative AI models for moderating large volumes of user-generated textual content on social media.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on the Web
ACM Transactions on the Web 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
7.5 months
期刊介绍: Transactions on the Web (TWEB) is a journal publishing refereed articles reporting the results of research on Web content, applications, use, and related enabling technologies. Topics in the scope of TWEB include but are not limited to the following: Browsers and Web Interfaces; Electronic Commerce; Electronic Publishing; Hypertext and Hypermedia; Semantic Web; Web Engineering; Web Services; and Service-Oriented Computing XML. In addition, papers addressing the intersection of the following broader technologies with the Web are also in scope: Accessibility; Business Services Education; Knowledge Management and Representation; Mobility and pervasive computing; Performance and scalability; Recommender systems; Searching, Indexing, Classification, Retrieval and Querying, Data Mining and Analysis; Security and Privacy; and User Interfaces. Papers discussing specific Web technologies, applications, content generation and management and use are within scope. Also, papers describing novel applications of the web as well as papers on the underlying technologies are welcome.
期刊最新文献
DCDIMB: Dynamic Community-based Diversified Influence Maximization using Bridge Nodes Know their Customers: An Empirical Study of Online Account Enumeration Attacks Learning Dynamic Multimodal Network Slot Concepts from the Web for Forecasting Environmental, Social and Governance Ratings MuLX-QA: Classifying Multi-Labels and Extracting Rationale Spans in Social Media Posts Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network with Personalized and Adaptive Diversity for News Recommendation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1