ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks

with Meysam Alizadeh & Maël Kubli

We find that zero-shot #ChatGPT:
> has better accuracy than #MTurk
> has better intercoder agreement than MTurk and trained coders
> is 20x cheaper than MTurk

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15056

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.

arXiv.org
@fgilardi Maybe I misunderstand the paper's argument (have only read the abstract) but isn't the purpose of much text annotation precisely to get a benchmark of *human* interpretation of text?
@RenseC to me, most of the time the purpose is to get consistent labels based on conceptual categories developed by researchers. Otherwise it's just opinions, no?
@fgilardi For such cases, comparing to AI indeed makes sense. But if you want to benchmark the performance of an NLP algorithm that aims to approximate human interpretation ("opinions"), then having an actual human benchmark seems indispensable.