Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks

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

arxiv 2304.10145 v2 pith:ID3P4KDK submitted 2023-04-20 cs.AI cs.CL

Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks

classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords chatgpttasksanalysiscomputingsocialannotationdetectionhuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The release of ChatGPT has uncovered a range of possibilities whereby large language models (LLMs) can substitute human intelligence. In this paper, we seek to understand whether ChatGPT has the potential to reproduce human-generated label annotations in social computing tasks. Such an achievement could significantly reduce the cost and complexity of social computing research. As such, we use ChatGPT to relabel five seminal datasets covering stance detection (2x), sentiment analysis, hate speech, and bot detection. Our results highlight that ChatGPT does have the potential to handle these data annotation tasks, although a number of challenges remain. ChatGPT obtains an average accuracy 0.609. Performance is highest for the sentiment analysis dataset, with ChatGPT correctly annotating 64.9% of tweets. Yet, we show that performance varies substantially across individual labels. We believe this work can open up new lines of analysis and act as a basis for future research into the exploitation of ChatGPT for human annotation tasks.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-08 accept novelty 7.0

    The paper delivers a taxonomy of seven LLM study types in software engineering along with eight guidelines that separate mandatory requirements from recommended practices to address reproducibility challenges.

  2. An Annotation Scheme and Classifier for Personal Facts in Dialogue

    cs.CL 2026-05 accept novelty 6.0

    An extended annotation scheme with new categories and attributes plus a Gemma-300M-based multi-head classifier achieves 81.6% macro F1 on personal fact classification, outperforming few-shot LLM baselines by nearly 9 ...

  3. Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-08 accept novelty 6.0

    A group of 22 researchers proposes seven study types and eight guidelines for empirical software engineering studies involving LLMs to enhance reproducibility and replicability.

  4. "Do Anything Now": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2023-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Real-world jailbreak prompts collected from the wild achieve up to 0.95 attack success rates against major LLMs including GPT-4, with some persisting for over 240 days.

  5. Refining and Reusing Annotation Guidelines for LLM Annotation

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 4.0

    An iterative moderation framework refines and reuses annotation guidelines to improve LLM annotation accuracy on biomedical NER tasks across GPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek models.

  6. Toward Generalized Cross-Lingual Hateful Language Detection with Web-Scale Data and Ensemble LLM Annotations

    cs.CL 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Continued pre-training on web data and LLM-ensemble synthetic labels improve multilingual hate speech detection, with gains up to 11% for small models in low-resource settings.