REVIEW 2 cited by
Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent studies have alarmed that many online hate speeches are implicit. With its subtle nature, the explainability of the detection of such hateful speech has been a challenging problem. In this work, we examine whether ChatGPT can be used for providing natural language explanations (NLEs) for implicit hateful speech detection. We design our prompt to elicit concise ChatGPT-generated NLEs and conduct user studies to evaluate their qualities by comparison with human-written NLEs. We discuss the potential and limitations of ChatGPT in the context of implicit hateful speech research.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Hidden Language of Harm: Examining the Role of Emojis in Harmful Online Communication and Content Moderation
A multi-step LLM pipeline that identifies and replaces offensive or intensifying emojis in tweets reduces perceived offensiveness in human evaluation, especially for mild offenses, without large semantic loss.
-
Strategic Prompting for Conversational Tasks: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models Across Diverse Conversational Tasks
No single open-source LLM among Llama, OPT, Falcon, Alpaca, and MPT performs best across reservation, empathy, counseling, persuasion, and negotiation tasks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.