Hazem Ibrahim

Nouar Aldahoul, Hazem Ibrahim, Majd Mahmutoglu et al.

Schadenfreude, or the pleasure derived from others' misfortunes, has become a visible and performative feature of online news engagement, yet little is known about its prevalence, dynamics, or social patterning. We examine schadenfreude on Facebook over a ten-year period across nine major news publishers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India (one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one centrist per country). Using a combination of human annotation and machine-learning classification, we identify posts describing misfortune and detect schadenfreude in nearly one million associated comments. We find that while sadness and anger dominate reactions to misfortune posts, laughter and amusement form a substantial and patterned minority. Schadenfreude is most frequent in moralized and political contexts, higher among right-leaning audiences, and more pronounced in India than in the United States or United Kingdom. Temporal and regression analyses further reveal asymmetric relationships between political power and schadenfreude: left-leaning outlets display "power-licensed" schadenfreude that increases when their party governs, while right-leaning outlets exhibit "power-compensatory" schadenfreude that intensifies in opposition. Together, our findings move beyond anecdotal accounts to map schadenfreude as a dynamic, context-dependent feature of digital discourse, revealing how it evolves over time and across ideological and cultural divides.

Hazem Ibrahim, Nouar AlDahoul, Syed Mustafa Ali Abbasi et al.

The manner in which different racial and gender groups are portrayed in news coverage plays a large role in shaping public opinion. As such, understanding how such groups are portrayed in news media is of notable societal value, and has thus been a significant endeavour in both the computer and social sciences. Yet, the literature still lacks a longitudinal study examining both the frequency of appearance of different racial and gender groups in online news articles, as well as the context in which such groups are discussed. To fill this gap, we propose two machine learning classifiers to detect the race and age of a given subject. Next, we compile a dataset of 123,337 images and 441,321 online news articles from New York Times (NYT) and Fox News (Fox), and examine representation through two computational approaches. Firstly, we examine the frequency and prominence of appearance of racial and gender groups in images embedded in news articles, revealing that racial and gender minorities are largely under-represented, and when they do appear, they are featured less prominently compared to majority groups. Furthermore, we find that NYT largely features more images of racial minority groups compared to Fox. Secondly, we examine both the frequency and context with which racial minority groups are presented in article text. This reveals the narrow scope in which certain racial groups are covered and the frequency with which different groups are presented as victims and/or perpetrators in a given conflict. Taken together, our analysis contributes to the literature by providing two novel open-source classifiers to detect race and age from images, and shedding light on the racial and gender biases in news articles from venues on opposite ends of the American political spectrum.

Nouar Aldahoul, Hazem Ibrahim, Matteo Varvello et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world. As people become increasingly reliant on them for an enormous variety of tasks, a body of academic research has developed to examine these models for inherent biases, especially political biases, often finding them small. We challenge this prevailing wisdom. First, by comparing 31 LLMs to legislators, judges, and a nationally representative sample of U.S. voters, we show that LLMs' apparently small overall partisan preference is the net result of offsetting extreme views on specific topics, much like moderate voters. Second, in a randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can promulgate their preferences into political persuasiveness even in information-seeking contexts: voters randomized to discuss political issues with an LLM chatbot are as much as 5 percentage points more likely to express the same preferences as that chatbot. Contrary to expectations, these persuasive effects are not moderated by familiarity with LLMs, news consumption, or interest in politics. LLMs, especially those controlled by private companies or governments, may become a powerful and targeted vector for political influence.

Chen Wei Kuo, Kevin Chu, Nouar AlDahoul et al.

Bias in news reporting significantly impacts public perception, particularly regarding crime, politics, and societal issues. Traditional bias detection methods, predominantly reliant on human moderation, suffer from subjective interpretations and scalability constraints. Here, we introduce an AI-driven framework leveraging advanced large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4o, GPT-4o Mini, Gemini Pro, Gemini Flash, Llama 8B, and Llama 3B, to systematically identify and mitigate biases in news articles. To this end, we collect an extensive dataset consisting of over 30,000 crime-related articles from five politically diverse news sources spanning a decade (2013-2023). Our approach employs a two-stage methodology: (1) bias detection, where each LLM scores and justifies biased content at the paragraph level, validated through human evaluation for ground truth establishment, and (2) iterative debiasing using GPT-4o Mini, verified by both automated reassessment and human reviewers. Empirical results indicate GPT-4o Mini's superior accuracy in bias detection and effectiveness in debiasing. Furthermore, our analysis reveals temporal and geographical variations in media bias correlating with socio-political dynamics and real-world events. This study contributes to scalable computational methodologies for bias mitigation, promoting fairness and accountability in news reporting.

Hazem Ibrahim, Fengyuan Liu, Rohail Asim et al.

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerful tools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable from human-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology, students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work -- a possibility that has sparked discussions on the integrity of student evaluations in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclear how such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses. Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools, and educators' perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, we compare the performance of ChatGPT against students on 32 university-level courses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by two classifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct a survey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors' institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use. We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that of students in many courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, we find an emerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treat this as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policy discussions addressing the integration of AI into educational frameworks.