mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Comparison of Human and ChatGPT Classification Performance on Complex Social Media Data

arXiv 2512.00673 ↗First posted 29 Nov 2025cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative artificial intelligence tools, like ChatGPT, are an increasingly utilized resource among computational social scientists. Nevertheless, there remains space for improved understanding of the performance of ChatGPT in complex tasks such as classifying and annotating datasets containing nuanced language. Method. In this paper, we measure the performance of GPT-4 on one such task and compare results to human annotators. We investigate ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4o to examine performance given rapid changes in technological advancement of large language models. We craft four prompt styles as input and evaluate precision, recall, and F1 scores. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluations of results demonstrate that while including label definitions in prompts may help performance, overall GPT-4 has difficulty classifying nuanced language. Qualitative analysis reveals four specific findings. Our results suggest the use of ChatGPT in classification tasks involving nuanced language should be conducted with prudence.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Nov 2025.

Builds on

20 of 44 references.

References · 20

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
  4. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
  5. 2023Large Language Modelscited by 774
  6. 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 612
  7. 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 258
  8. 2022Is GPT-3 a Good Data Annotator?cited by 208
  9. 2023ChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of nonecited by 204
  10. 2021Want To Reduce Labeling Cost? GPT-3 Can Helpcited by 196
  11. 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 165
  12. 2022The 'Problem' of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluationcited by 133
8 more
  1. 2023The Generative AI Paradox: "What It Can Create, It May Not Understand"cited by 97
  2. 2023Extracting Accurate Materials Data from Research Papers with Conversational Language Models and Prompt Engineeringcited by 86
  3. 2022Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotationcited by 67
  4. 2018Thou shalt not hate: Countering Online Hate Speechcited by 64
  5. 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
  6. 2024Can Language Models Recognize Convincing Arguments?cited by 21
  7. 2021Cross-Partisan Discussions on YouTube: Conservatives Talk to Liberals but Liberals Don't Talk to Conservativescited by 2
  8. 2024Discursive objection strategies in online comments: Developing a classification schema and validating its trainingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.