Open-Source Large Language Models Outperform Crowd Workers and Approach ChatGPT in Text-Annotation Tasks

This study examines the performance of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) in text annotation tasks and compares it with proprietary models like ChatGPT and human-based services such as MTurk. While prior research demonstrated the high performance of ChatGPT across numerous NLP tasks, open-source LLMs like HugginChat and FLAN are gaining attention for their cost-effectiveness, transparency, reproducibility, and superior data protection. We assess these models using both zero-shot and few-shot approaches and different temperature parameters across a range of text annotation tasks. Our findings show that while ChatGPT achieves the best performance in most tasks, open-source LLMs not only outperform MTurk but also demonstrate competitive potential against ChatGPT in specific tasks.

ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks

Many NLP applications require manual data annotations for a variety of tasks, notably to train classifiers or evaluate the performance of unsupervised models. Depending on the size and degree of complexity, the tasks may be conducted by crowd-workers on platforms such as MTurk as well as trained annotators, such as research assistants. Using a sample of 2,382 tweets, we demonstrate that ChatGPT outperforms crowd-workers for several annotation tasks, including relevance, stance, topics, and frames detection. Specifically, the zero-shot accuracy of ChatGPT exceeds that of crowd-workers for four out of five tasks, while ChatGPT's intercoder agreement exceeds that of both crowd-workers and trained annotators for all tasks. Moreover, the per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003 -- about twenty times cheaper than MTurk. These results show the potential of large language models to drastically increase the efficiency of text classification.

Psychological and Personality Profiles of Political Extremists

Global recruitment into radical Islamic movements has spurred renewed interest in the appeal of political extremism. Is the appeal a rational response to material conditions or is it the expression of psychological and personality disorders associated with aggressive behavior, intolerance, conspiratorial imagination, and paranoia? Empirical answers using surveys have been limited by lack of access to extremist groups, while field studies have lacked psychological measures and failed to compare extremists with contrast groups. We revisit the debate over the appeal of extremism in the U.S. context by comparing publicly available Twitter messages written by over 355,000 political extremist followers with messages written by non-extremist U.S. users. Analysis of text-based psychological indicators supports the moral foundation theory which identifies emotion as a critical factor in determining political orientation of individuals. Extremist followers also differ from others in four of the Big Five personality traits.