The use of words to convey speaker’s intent is traditionally distinguished from the ‘mention’ of words for quoting what someone said, or pointing out properties of a word. Here we show that computationally modeling this use-mention distinction is crucial for dealing with counterspeech online. Counterspeech that refutes problematic content often mentions harmful language but is not harmful itself (e.g., calling a vaccine dangerous is not the same as expressing disapproval of someone for calling vaccines dangerous). We show that even recent language models fail at distinguishing use from mention, and that this failure propagates to two key downstream tasks: misinformation and hate speech detection, resulting in censorship of counterspeech. We introduce prompting mitigations that teach the use-mention distinction, and show they reduce these errors. Our work highlights the importance of the use-mention distinction for NLP and CSS and offers ways to address it.

Effective conversation requires common ground: a shared understanding between the participants. Common ground, however, does not emerge spontaneously in conversation. Speakers and listeners work together to both identify and construct a shared basis while avoiding misunderstanding. To accomplish grounding, humans rely on a range of dialogue acts, like clarification (What do you mean?) and acknowledgment (I understand.). However, it is unclear whether large language models (LLMs) generate text that reflects human grounding. To this end, we curate a set of grounding acts and propose corresponding metrics that quantify attempted grounding. We study whether LLM generations contain grounding acts, simulating turn-taking from several dialogue datasets and comparing results to humans. We find that—compared to humans—LLMs generate language with less conversational grounding, instead generating text that appears to simply presume common ground. To understand the roots of the identified grounding gap, we examine the role of instruction tuning and preference optimization, finding that training on contemporary preference data leads to a reduction in generated grounding acts. Altogether, we highlight the need for more research investigating conversational grounding in human-AI interaction.

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human-like characteristics to non-human entities, has shaped conversations about the impacts and possibilities of technology. We present AnthroScore, an automatic metric of implicit anthropomorphism in language. We use a masked language model to quantify how non-human entities are implicitly framed as human by the surrounding context. We show that AnthroScore corresponds with human judgments of anthropomorphism and dimensions of anthropomorphism described in social science literature. Motivated by concerns of misleading anthropomorphism in computer science discourse, we use AnthroScore to analyze 15 years of research papers and downstream news articles. In research papers, we find that anthropomorphism has steadily increased over time, and that papers related to language models have the most anthropomorphism. Within ACL papers, temporal increases in anthropomorphism are correlated with key neural advancements. Building upon concerns of scientific misinformation in mass media, we identify higher levels of anthropomorphism in news headlines compared to the research papers they cite. Since AnthroScore is lexicon-free, it can be directly applied to a wide range of text sources.

The readability of a digital text can influence people’s ability to learn new things about a range topics from digital resources (e.g., Wikipedia, WebMD). Readability also impacts search rankings, and is used to evaluate the performance of NLP systems. Despite this, we lack a thorough understanding of how to validly measure readability at scale, especially for domain-specific texts. In this work, we present a comparison of the validity of well-known readability measures and introduce a novel approach, Smart Cloze, which is designed to address shortcomings of existing measures. We compare these approaches across four different corpora: crowdworker-generated stories, Wikipedia articles, security and privacy advice, and health information. On these corpora, we evaluate the convergent and content validity of each measure, and detail tradeoffs in score precision, domain-specificity, and participant burden. These results provide a foundation for more accurate readability measurements and better evaluation of new natural-language-processing systems and tools.