Evaluation of an LLM in Identifying Logical Fallacies: A Call for Rigor When Adopting LLMs in HCI Research

April 08, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› CSCW Companion

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Gionnieve Lim, Simon T. Perrault arXiv ID 2404.05213 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Cross-listed cs.AI Citations 9 Venue CSCW Companion Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the adoption of LLMs in HCI research. However, LLMs may often be regarded as a panacea because of their powerful capabilities with an accompanying oversight on whether they are suitable for their intended tasks. We contend that LLMs should be adopted in a critical manner following rigorous evaluation. Accordingly, we present the evaluation of an LLM in identifying logical fallacies that will form part of a digital misinformation intervention. By comparing to a labeled dataset, we found that GPT-4 achieves an accuracy of 0.79, and for our intended use case that excludes invalid or unidentified instances, an accuracy of 0.90. This gives us the confidence to proceed with the application of the LLM while keeping in mind the areas where it still falls short. The paper describes our evaluation approach, results and reflections on the use of the LLM for our intended task.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted