Dimensions of Online Conflict: Towards Modeling Agonism
Authors:
Matt Canute,
Mali Jin,
hannah holtzclaw,
Alberto Lusoli,
Philippa R Adams,
Mugdha Pandya,
Maite Taboada,
Diana Maynard,
Wendy Hui Kyong Chun
Abstract:
Agonism plays a vital role in democratic dialogue by fostering diverse perspectives and robust discussions. Within the realm of online conflict there is another type: hateful antagonism, which undermines constructive dialogue. Detecting conflict online is central to platform moderation and monetization. It is also vital for democratic dialogue, but only when it takes the form of agonism. To model…
▽ More
Agonism plays a vital role in democratic dialogue by fostering diverse perspectives and robust discussions. Within the realm of online conflict there is another type: hateful antagonism, which undermines constructive dialogue. Detecting conflict online is central to platform moderation and monetization. It is also vital for democratic dialogue, but only when it takes the form of agonism. To model these two types of conflict, we collected Twitter conversations related to trending controversial topics. We introduce a comprehensive annotation schema for labelling different dimensions of conflict in the conversations, such as the source of conflict, the target, and the rhetorical strategies deployed. Using this schema, we annotated approximately 4,000 conversations with multiple labels. We then trained both logistic regression and transformer-based models on the dataset, incorporating context from the conversation, including the number of participants and the structure of the interactions. Results show that contextual labels are helpful in identifying conflict and make the models robust to variations in topic. Our research contributes a conceptualization of different dimensions of conflict, a richly annotated dataset, and promising results that can contribute to content moderation.
△ Less
Submitted 6 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society
Authors:
Irene Solaiman,
Zeerak Talat,
William Agnew,
Lama Ahmad,
Dylan Baker,
Su Lin Blodgett,
Canyu Chen,
Hal Daumé III,
Jesse Dodge,
Isabella Duan,
Ellie Evans,
Felix Friedrich,
Avijit Ghosh,
Usman Gohar,
Sara Hooker,
Yacine Jernite,
Ria Kalluri,
Alberto Lusoli,
Alina Leidinger,
Michelle Lin,
Xiuzhu Lin,
Sasha Luccioni,
Jennifer Mickel,
Margaret Mitchell,
Jessica Newman
, et al. (6 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categor…
▽ More
Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. In this paper, we present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality in two overarching categories: what can be evaluated in a base system independent of context and what can be evaluated in a societal context. Importantly, this refers to base systems that have no predetermined application or deployment context, including a model itself, as well as system components, such as training data. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to listed generative modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what can be evaluated in a broader societal context, each with its own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm.
△ Less
Submitted 28 June, 2024; v1 submitted 9 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
