Comprehensive Assessment of Toxicity in ChatGPT
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Moderating offensive, hateful, and toxic language has always been an important but challenging topic in the domain of safe use in NLP. The emerging large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, can potentially further accentuate this threat. Previous works have discovered that ChatGPT can generate toxic responses using carefully crafted inputs. However, limited research has been done to systematically examine when ChatGPT generates toxic responses. In this paper, we comprehensively evaluate the toxicity in ChatGPT by utilizing instruction-tuning datasets that closely align with real-world scenarios. Our results show that ChatGPT's toxicity varies based on different properties and settings of the prompts, including tasks, domains, length, and languages. Notably, prompts in creative writing tasks can be 2x more likely than others to elicit toxic responses. Prompting in German and Portuguese can also double the response toxicity. Additionally, we discover that certain deliberately toxic prompts, designed in earlier studies, no longer yield harmful responses. We hope our discoveries can guide model developers to better regulate these AI systems and the users to avoid undesirable outputs.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Nov 2023.
Builds on
21 of 25 references.
References · 21
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
- 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 894
- 2023Instruction Tuning with GPT-4cited by 686
- 2023Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Studycited by 498
- 2023Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Modelscited by 360
- 2023Exploiting Programmatic Behavior of LLMs: Dual-Use Through Standard Security Attackscited by 278
- 2019Queens are Powerful too: Mitigating Gender Bias in Dialogue Generationcited by 152
- 2023An Analysis of the Automatic Bug Fixing Performance of ChatGPTcited by 110
- 2023MGTBench: Benchmarking Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 93
9 more
- 2022On Decoding Strategies for Neural Text Generatorscited by 90
- 2023Exploring the Impact of Instruction Data Scaling on Large Language Models: An Empirical Study on Real-World Use Casescited by 86
- 2021Anticipating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Toolingcited by 78
- 2023In ChatGPT We Trust? Measuring and Characterizing the Reliability of ChatGPTcited by 37
- 2022Why So Toxic? Measuring and Triggering Toxic Behavior in Open-Domain Chatbotscited by 33
- 2018A Quantitative Approach to Understanding Online Antisemitismcited by 26
- 2022On Xing Tian and the Perseverance of Anti-China Sentiment Onlinecited by 10
- 2023The Role of AI in Human-AI Creative Writing for Hong Kong Secondary Studentscited by 5
- 2023Simulating H.P. Lovecraft horror literature with the ChatGPT large language modelcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2.
2 papers.
- 2024Safeguarding Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 78
- 2024Jill Watson: A Virtual Teaching Assistant powered by ChatGPTcited by 24
- 2024Safeguarding Large Language Models: A Survey3 Jun 2024
- 2024Jill Watson: A Virtual Teaching Assistant powered by ChatGPT17 May 2024