Public Attitudes Toward ChatGPT on Twitter: Sentiments, Topics, and Occupations
Open accessAbstract
ChatGPT sets a new record with the fastest-growing user base, as a chatbot powered by a large language model (LLM). While it demonstrates state-of-the-art capabilities in a variety of language-generation tasks, it also raises widespread public concerns regarding its societal impact. In this paper, we investigated public attitudes towards ChatGPT by applying natural language processing techniques such as sentiment analysis and topic modeling to Twitter data from December 5, 2022 to June 10, 2023. Our sentiment analysis result indicates that the overall sentiment was largely neutral to positive, and negative sentiments were decreasing over time. Our topic model reveals that the most popular topics discussed were Education, Bard, Search Engines, OpenAI, Marketing, and Cybersecurity, but the ranking varies by month. We also analyzed the occupations of Twitter users and found that those with occupations in arts and entertainment tweeted aboutChatGPT most frequently. Additionally, people tended to tweet about topics relevant to their occupation. For instance, Cybersecurity is the most discussed topic among those with occupations related to computer and math, and Education is the most discussed topic among those in academic and research. Overall, our exploratory study provides insights into the public perception of ChatGPT, which could be valuable to both the general public and developers of this technology.
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?
The study's result on LLM attitude is consistent with Koonchanok et al. [52], who found that overall public sentiment towards ChatGPT from December 2022 to March 2023 was largely neutral to positive.
“This result consistent with that of Koonchanok et al. [52] who investigated public attitudes towards ChatGPT by analyzing Twitter data from December 2022 to March 2023 and found that the overall sentiment is largely neutral to positive.”
From "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust (2024) · cites this paper as [52]
The Discussion reports that the overall tweet sentiment was mildly positive, with neutral tweets the largest group. But the Dataset section says the Twitter data ran from December 5, 2022 through June 10, 2023—not only through March 2023. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA comprehensive data-driven inquiry into how specifically academia perceives and utilizes ChatGPT is still lacking.
“Additionally, although some research has leveraged Twitter data to capture a wider view of ChatGPT's early adoption through topic and sentiment analysis (e.g., Koonchanok et al., 2023;Leiter et al., 2023;Taecharungroj, 2023), a comprehensive data-driven inquiry into how specifically academia perceives and utilizes ChatGPT is still lacking.”
From Widen the debate: What is the academic community’s perception on ChatGPT? (2024) · cites this paper as Koonchanok et al., 2023
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
Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2002) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0082 · Cited by 12,649 · see citing works
VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text
Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 · Cited by 6,087 · see citing works
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., ChatGPT, Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.12.19.22283643 · Cited by 4,115 · see citing works
Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., et al. (2023) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · Cited by 4,115 · see citing works
What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education
Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D. T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023) · Smart Learning Environments · doi:10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x · Cited by 2,003 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Others focused on its potential in specific domains, such as education and healthcare (Dwivedi et al. 2023; Biswas 2023; Tlili et al. 2023; Dempere et al. 2023; Shoufan 2023).”
On the resemblance and containment of documents
Broder, A. (2002) · Compression and Complexity of Sequences (SEQUENCES) · doi:10.1109/sequen.1997.666900 · Cited by 1,734 · see citing works
ChatGPT is fun, but not an author
Thorp, H. H. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adg7879 · Cited by 1,437 · see citing works
Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code
Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03374 · Cited by 1,436 · see citing works
BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure
Grootendorst, M. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.05794 · Cited by 1,423 · see citing works
Competition-level code generation with AlphaCode
Li, Y., Choi, D., Chung, J., Kushman, N., Schrittwieser, J., Leblond, R., Eccles, T., Keeling, J., Gimeno, F., Dal Lago, A., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abq1158 · Cited by 1,043 · see citing works
TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 · Cited by 904 · see citing works
TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.07958 · Cited by 899 · see citing works
TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classification
Barbieri, F., Camacho-Collados, J., Anke, L. E., & Neves, L. (2020) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.148 · Cited by 756 · see citing works
Role of Chat GPT in public health
Biswas, S. S. (2023) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10439-023-03172-7 · Cited by 673 · see citing works
Open artificial intelligence platforms in nursing education: Tools for academic progress or abuse?
O’Connor, S., & ChatGPT (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
ChatGPT Goes to Law SchoolPreprint
Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. B. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4335905 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures
Borji, A. (2023) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2895792/v1 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures
Borji, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.03494 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ChatGPT: Thematic Analysis and Follow-Up Survey
Shoufan, A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3268224 · Cited by 499 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Others focused on its potential in specific domains, such as education and healthcare (Dwivedi et al. 2023; Biswas 2023; Tlili et al. 2023; Dempere et al. 2023; Shoufan 2023).”
“What Can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing Early Reactions to the Innovative AI Chatbot on Twitter
Taecharungroj, V. (2023) · Big Data and Cognitive Computing · doi:10.3390/bdcc7010035 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477 · see citing works
Cheng, Y., & Jiang, H. (2021) · Journal of Product & Brand Management · doi:10.1108/jpbm-05-2020-2907 · Cited by 439 · see citing works
Lee, M., Liang, P., & Yang, Q. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502030 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Fundamentals, Applications and Social Impacts
Abdullah, M., Madain, A., & Jararweh, Y. (2022) · 2022 Ninth International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS) · doi:10.1109/snams58071.2022.10062688 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views
Jakesch, M., Bhat, A., Buschek, D., Zalmanson, L., & Naaman, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581196 · Cited by 265 · cited 1× · see citing works
“From a societal standpoint, it becomes alarmingly disturbing considering the bias and discrimination inherent to LLMs from their training datasets (Jakesch et al. 2023; Lin et al. 2021; Weidinger et al. 2021; Zhuo et al. 2023; Abid et al. 2021).”
TimeLMs: Diachronic Language Models from Twitter
Loureiro, D., Barbieri, F., Neves, L., Espinosa Anke, L., & Camacho-collados, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-demo.25 · Cited by 263 · see citing works
ChatGPT in education: global reactions to AI innovations
Fütterer, T., Fischer, C., Alekseeva, A., Chen, X., Tate, T., Warschauer, M., & Gerjets, P. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-42227-6 · Cited by 242 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Studies that focused on specific areas like cybersecurity (Okey et al. 2023), healthcare (Praveen and Vajrobol 2023), or education (Li et al. 2023; Fütterer et al. 2023) examined tweets with relatively longer time spans, ranging from 2 to 4 months.”
Mirowski, P., Mathewson, K. W., Pittman, J., & Evans, R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581225 · Cited by 240 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It has captured people’s imagination about a revolutionized future of programming (Chen et al. 2021; Li et al. 2022), writing (Mirowski et al. 2022; Lee et al. 2022), and many more (Kocoń et al. 2023; Fatouros et al. 2023).”
Haque, M. U., Dharmadasa, I., Sworna, Z. T., Rajapakse, R. N., & Ahmad, H. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.05856 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Rapamycin in the context of Pascal's Wager: generative pre-trained transformer perspective
Generative Pre-trained Transformer, C., & Zhavoronkov, A. (2022) · Oncoscience · doi:10.18632/oncoscience.571 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
ChatGPT in education: a discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social media
Li, L., Ma, Z., Fan, L., Lee, S., Yu, H., & Hemphill, L. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12256-9 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Understanding public attitudes to technology
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/136698798377141 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Large language models associate Muslims with violence
Abid, A., Farooqi, M., & Zou, J. (2021) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00359-2 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Impact of ChatGPT on medical chatbots as a disruptive technology
Chow, J. C. L., Sanders, L., & Li, K. (2023) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1166014 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
ChatGPT: A Meta-Analysis after 2.5 MonthsPreprint
Leiter, C., Zhang, R., Chen, Y., Belouadi, J., Larionov, D., Fresen, V., & Eger, S. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13795 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
XLM-T: Multilingual Language Models in Twitter for Sentiment Analysis and Beyond
Barbieri, F., Espinosa-Anke, L., & Camacho-Collados, J. (2022) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/4fhqtpvii3vg · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Red teaming ChatGPT via Jailbreaking: Bias, Robustness, Reliability and Toxicity
Zhuo, T. Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., & Xing, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.12867 · Cited by 164 · cited 1× · see citing works
“From a societal standpoint, it becomes alarmingly disturbing considering the bias and discrimination inherent to LLMs from their training datasets (Jakesch et al. 2023; Lin et al. 2021; Weidinger et al. 2021; Zhuo et al. 2023; Abid et al. 2021).”
Chatgpt: a meta-analysis after 2.5 months
Leiter, C., Zhang, R., Chen, Y., Belouadi, J., Larionov, D., Fresen, V., & Eger, S. (2024) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100541 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
de Cosmo, L. M., Piper, L., & Di Vittorio, A. (2021) · Italian Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1007/s43039-021-00020-1 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Teacher Attitude towards Use of Chatbots in Routine Teaching
Bii, P. K., Too, J., & Mukwa, C. W. (2018) · Universal Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.13189/ujer.2018.060719 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Investigating ChatGPT and cybersecurity: A perspective on topic modeling and sentiment analysis
Okey, O. D., Udo, E. U., Rosa, R. L., Rodríguez, D. Z., & Kleinschmidt, J. H. (2023) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2023.103476 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Truth, Lies, and Automation: How Language Models Could Change Disinformation
Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Buchanan, B., Lohn, A., Musser, M., & Sedova, K. (2021) · doi:10.51593/2021ca003 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
SemEval-2017 Task 4: Sentiment Analysis in TwitterPreprint
Rosenthal, S., Farra, N., & Nakov, P. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.00741 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Analyzing the User's Sentiments of ChatGPT Using Twitter Data
Korkmaz, A., Aktürk, C., & Talan, T. (2023) · Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics · doi:10.52866/ijcsm.2023.02.02.018 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Praveen, S. V., & Vajrobol, V. (2023) · Annals of Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10439-023-03222-0 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.14334 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
(2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00613-9 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
ChatGPT: Disruptive Educational Technology
Frith, K. H. (2023) · Nursing Education Perspectives · doi:10.1097/01.nep.0000000000001129 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
FOLIO: Natural Language Reasoning with First-Order Logic
Han, S., Schoelkopf, H., Zhao, Y., Qi, Z., Riddell, M., Zhou, W., Coady, J., Peng, D., Qiao, Y., Benson, L., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.00840 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Sentiment Analysis of Using ChatGPT in Education
Tubishat, M., Al-Obeidat, F. N., & Shuhaiber, A. (2023) · International Conference on Smart Applications, Communications and Networking (SmartNets) · doi:10.1109/smartnets58706.2023.10215977 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
TimeLMs: Diachronic Language Models from TwitterPreprint
Loureiro, D., Barbieri, F., Neves, L., et al. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.03829 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
ChatGPT in education: A discourse analysis of worries and concerns on social mediaPreprint
Li, L., Ma, Z., Fan, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.02201 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Tounsi, A., Elkefi, S., & Layeb, S. B. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Systems and Emergent Technologies (IC_ASET) · doi:10.1109/ic_aset58101.2023.10150870 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Mirowski, P., Mathewson, K. W., Pittman, J., & Evans, R. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.14958 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
The Impact of ChatGPT on Higher Education
Rai, N. K., Bansal, A., Arpita, A., Arya, M., & Shekhar, R. (2024) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/ijca2024923998 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
XLM-T: Multilingual Language Models in Twitter for Sentiment Analysis and Beyond
Barbieri, F., Anke, L. E., & Camacho-Collados, J. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.12250
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- abq1158 · DOI · Paper page
- Dwivedi, Y.K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E.L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A.K., Baabdul- lah, A.M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., et al.: "so what if chatgpt wrote it?" multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational ai for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management 71, 102642 (2023)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kim, S. S. Y., Liao, Q. V., Vorvoreanu, M., Ballard, S., & Vaughan, J. W. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658941 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Widen the debate: What is the academic community’s perception on ChatGPT?
Jiang, Y., Xie, L., Lin, G., & Mo, F. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-12677-0 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Demirel, S., Çakıcı, Z., & Bulur, N. (2024) · Sotsiologicheskoe Obozrenie / Russian Sociological Review · doi:10.17323/1728-192x-2024-4-48-79 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
AI Perspectives in Education: A BERT-based Exploration of Informatics Students’ Attitudes to ChatGPT
Bau, R. T. R. L., Hermila, A., Farman, I., Hidayat, L. M., & Salim, S. (2023) · doi:10.1109/icet59790.2023.10435040 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Teerakapibal, S., & Kusawat, P. (2025) · Journal of Education for Business · doi:10.1080/08832323.2025.2536255 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Exploring the Educational Landscape of ChatGPT: A Topic Modeling Approach on Twitter Data
Kuhaneswaran, B., Vadivel, A., Wijeratne, A. K., Ravikumar, N., Kumara, S., Achchuthan, S., & Vijayanandan, T. (2024) · Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities · doi:10.4038/sljssh.v4i1.114 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Analyzing User's Sentiments Using Twitter Data on the Usage of ChatGPT
Kumarawadu, T. E., & Rupasingha, R. A. H. M. (2024) · International Conference on Advanced Research in Computing (ICARC) · doi:10.1109/icarc61713.2024.10499702 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Abidin, A. Z., Furqon, M. A., & Bukhori, S. (2025) · Journal of Research in Artificial Intelligence for Systems and Applications · doi:10.19184/raisa.v1i1.4334 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Doi, H., Osawa, T., & Tsutsumida, N. (2024) · doi:10.22541/au.171137459.97301207/v1 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Twitter Sentiment Analysis on Chatgpt Tweets
Jadhav, A. (2023) · International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2023.56738
Twitter Insight: A Comprehensive Pre-processing Approach for Twitter Sentiment Analysis
Yashwanth, P. (2025) · International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2025.70023
Amanda, C. T. (2026) · Jurnal Kajian Ilmu dan Teknologi (JKIT) · doi:10.71200/mbwk4j53
- Authors
- Koonchanok, R., Pan, Y., & Jang, H.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
- Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Jang, Hyeju
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.12951
- OpenAlex
- W4381795714
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, public attitudes, large language models, chatbots, Twitter, sentiment analysis, topic modeling, social impact, cybersecurity, Google Bard, OpenAI
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
