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
Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech
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
-
Structure Before Collapse: Transient semantic geometry in next-token prediction
Semantic geometry emerges transiently early in next-token prediction training before collapsing to Neural Collapse symmetry in synthetic settings with latent semantic factors.
-
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
GPT-4 as an LLM judge achieves over 80% agreement with human preferences on MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena, matching human agreement levels and providing a scalable evaluation method.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.