Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech
Open accessAbstract
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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks.
“As LLMs continue to improve, they show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks [17,20].”
From Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
The Discussion and Conclusion (Section 5; page unavailable) says ChatGPT showed great potential as a data annotation tool for implicit hateful tweets. It does not establish that LLMs could replace human annotators across many tasks; it also urges caution about incorrect decisions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, Claire Seungeun Lee, Bogang Jun, and Yong-Yeol Ahn. 2021. Predicting Anti-Asian Hateful Users on Twitter during COVID-19. In EMNLP Findings.
- Valerio Basile, Cristina Bosco, Elisabetta Fersini, Debora Nozza, Viviana Patti, Francisco Manuel Rangel Pardo, Paolo Rosso, and Manuela Sanguinetti. 2019. SemEval-2019 Task 5: Multilingual Detection of Hate Speech Against Immigrants and Women in Twitter. In 13th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation.
- Anja Belz and Eric Kow. 2009. System Building Cost vs. Output Quality in Data- to-Text Generation. In Proceedings of European Workshop on Natural Language Generation.
- Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2018. e-SNLI: Natural language inference with natural language explanations. In NeurIPS.
- Ona de Gibert, Naiara Perez, Aitor García-Pablos, and Montse Cuadros. 2018. Hate Speech Dataset from a White Supremacy Forum. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Abusive Language Online.
- Mai ElSherief, Caleb Ziems, David Muchlinski, Vaishnavi Anupindi, Jordyn Sey- bolt, Munmun De Choudhury, and Diyi Yang. 2021. Latent Hatred: A Benchmark for Understanding Implicit Hate Speech. In EMNLP.
- Aidan Gilson, Conrad Safranek, Thomas Huang, Vimig Socrates, Ling Chi, Richard Andrew Taylor, and David Chartash. 2022. How Well Does ChatGPT Do When Taking the Medical Licensing Exams? The Implications of Large Language Models for Medical Education and Knowledge Assessment. medRxiv (2022), 2022-12.
- Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection. arXiv:2301.07597 (2023). · arXiv
- Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, and Jisun An. 2023. Chain of Explanation: New Prompting Method to Generate Higher Quality Natural Language Explanation for Implicit Hate Speech. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference.
- Katharina Jeblick, Balthasar Schachtner, Jakob Dexl, Andreas Mittermeier, Anna Theresa Stüber, Johanna Topalis, Tobias Weber, Philipp Wesp, Bastian Sabel, Jens Ricke, et al. 2022. ChatGPT Makes Medicine Easy to Swallow: An Exploratory Case Study on Simplifed Radiology Reports. arXiv:2212.14882 (2022). · arXiv
- Haewoon Kwak, Jeremy Blackburn, and Seungyeop Han. 2015. Exploring cyber- bullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. In Proceed- ings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems.
- Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Jurafsky, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. In ACL.
- Dominik Sobania, Martin Briesch, Carol Hanna, and Justyna Petke. 2023. An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPT. arXiv:2301.08653 (2023). · arXiv
- Rohit Sridhar and Diyi Yang. 2022. Explaining Toxic Text via Knowledge En- hanced Text Generation. In NAACL.
- Bowen Zhang, Daijun Ding, and Liwen Jing. 2022. How would Stance Detection Techniques Evolve after the Launch of ChatGPT? arXiv:2212.14548 (2022). · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks
Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2305016120 · Cited by 1,197 · see citing works
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
“As LLMs continue to improve, they show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks [14, 17].”
BackgroundPerils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research
Abdurahman, S., Atari, M., Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Xue, M. J., Trager, J., Park, P. S., Golazizian, P., Omrani, A., & Dehghani, M. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
“Kocon ́ et al. (76) found that LLMs may struggle with complex, subjective tasks such as emotion recognition, and Huang et al. (18) found that LLMs can reinforce lay perspectives when detecting implicit hate speech and may thus mislead nonexperts with their explanations in cases where they make incorrect decisions.”
InfluentialContent moderation by LLM: from accuracy to legitimacy
Huang, T. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11328-1 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks
Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.15056 · Cited by 1,207
- Authors
- Huang, F., Kwak, H., & An, J.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 294-297
- arXiv
- 2302.07736
- OpenAlex
- W4327811957
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 66
- FWCI
- 40.73
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, implicit hate speech, natural language explanations, explainable AI, hate speech detection, large language models, prompt engineering, user study
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
