Assessing the Human Likeness of AI-Generated Counterspeech

Counterspeech is a targeted response to counteract and challenge abusive or hateful content. It can effectively curb the spread of hatred and foster constructive online communication. Previous studies have proposed different strategies for automatically generated counterspeech. Evaluations, however, focus on the relevance, surface form, and other shallow linguistic characteristics. In this paper, we investigate the human likeness of AI-generated counterspeech, a critical factor influencing effectiveness. We implement and evaluate several LLM-based generation strategies, and discover that AI-generated and human-written counterspeech can be easily distinguished by both simple classifiers and humans. Further, we reveal differences in linguistic characteristics, politeness, and specificity.

Outcome-Constrained Large Language Models for Countering Hate Speech

Counterspeech that challenges or responds to hate speech has been seen as an alternative to mitigate the negative impact of hate speech and foster productive online communications. Research endeavors have been directed to using language models for the automatic generation of counterspeech to assist efforts in combating online hate. Existing research focuses on the generation of counterspeech with certain linguistic attributes, such as being polite, informative, and intent-driven. However, it remains unclear what impact the counterspeech might have in an online environment. We first explore methods that utilize large language models (LLM) to generate counterspeech constrained by potential conversation outcomes. We build two conversation outcome classifiers that predict the incivility level and the hater reentry behavior following replies to hate with Reddit data, then propose four methods to incorporate the desired outcomes, i.e., low conversation incivility and non-hateful hater reentry, into the text generation process, including Prompt with Instructions, Prompt and Select, LLM finetune, and LLM transformer reinforcement learning (TRL). Evaluation results show effective strategies to generate outcome-constrained counterspeech and the linguistic characteristics of texts generated by different methods.

Hate Cannot Drive out Hate: Forecasting Conversation Incivility following Replies to Hate Speech

User-generated replies to hate speech are promising means to combat hatred, but questions about whether they can stop incivility in follow-up conversations linger. We argue that effective replies stop incivility from emerging in follow-up conversations - replies that elicit more incivility are counterproductive. This study introduces the task of predicting the incivility of conversations following replies to hate speech. We first propose a metric to measure conversation incivility based on the number of civil and uncivil comments as well as the unique authors involved in the discourse. Our metric approximates human judgments more accurately than previous metrics. We then use the metric to evaluate the outcomes of replies to hate speech. A linguistic analysis uncovers the differences in the language of replies that elicit follow-up conversations with high and low incivility. Experimental results show that forecasting incivility is challenging. We close with a qualitative analysis shedding light into the most common errors made by the best model.

Hate Speech and Counter Speech Detection: Conversational Context Does Matter

Hate speech is plaguing the cyberspace along with user-generated content. This paper investigates the role of conversational context in the annotation and detection of online hate and counter speech, where context is defined as the preceding comment in a conversation thread. We created a context-aware dataset for a 3-way classification task on Reddit comments: hate speech, counter speech, or neutral. Our analyses indicate that context is critical to identify hate and counter speech: human judgments change for most comments depending on whether we show annotators the context. A linguistic analysis draws insights into the language people use to express hate and counter speech. Experimental results show that neural networks obtain significantly better results if context is taken into account. We also present qualitative error analyses shedding light into (a) when and why context is beneficial and (b) the remaining errors made by our best model when context is taken into account.