Kamil Kanclerz

Jan Kocoń, Igor Cichecki, Oliwier Kaszyca et al.

OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and revolutionized the approach in artificial intelligence to human-model interaction. Several publications on ChatGPT evaluation test its effectiveness on well-known natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the existing studies are mostly non-automated and tested on a very limited scale. In this work, we examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans, such as sentiment analysis, emotion recognition, offensiveness, and stance detection. In contrast, the other tasks require more objective reasoning like word sense disambiguation, linguistic acceptability, and question answering. We also evaluated GPT-4 model on five selected subsets of NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses. Our comparison of its results with available State-of-the-Art (SOTA) solutions showed that the average loss in quality of the ChatGPT model was about 25% for zero-shot and few-shot evaluation. For GPT-4 model, a loss for semantic tasks is significantly lower than for ChatGPT. We showed that the more difficult the task (lower SOTA performance), the higher the ChatGPT loss. It especially refers to pragmatic NLP problems like emotion recognition. We also tested the ability to personalize ChatGPT responses for selected subjective tasks via Random Contextual Few-Shot Personalization, and we obtained significantly better user-based predictions. Additional qualitative analysis revealed a ChatGPT bias, most likely due to the rules imposed on human trainers by OpenAI. Our results provide the basis for a fundamental discussion of whether the high quality of recent predictive NLP models can indicate a tool's usefulness to society and how the learning and validation procedures for such systems should be established.

Kamil Kanclerz, Julita Bielaniewicz, Marcin Gruza et al.

Data annotated by humans is a source of knowledge by describing the peculiarities of the problem and therefore fueling the decision process of the trained model. Unfortunately, the annotation process for subjective natural language processing (NLP) problems like offensiveness or emotion detection is often very expensive and time-consuming. One of the inevitable risks is to spend some of the funds and annotator effort on annotations that do not provide any additional knowledge about the specific task. To minimize these costs, we propose a new model-based approach that allows the selection of tasks annotated individually for each text in a multi-task scenario. The experiments carried out on three datasets, dozens of NLP tasks, and thousands of annotations show that our method allows up to 40% reduction in the number of annotations with negligible loss of knowledge. The results also emphasize the need to collect a diverse amount of data required to efficiently train a model, depending on the subjectivity of the annotation task. We also focused on measuring the relation between subjective tasks by evaluating the model in single-task and multi-task scenarios. Moreover, for some datasets, training only on the labels predicted by our model improved the efficiency of task selection as a self-supervised learning regularization technique.