Dual use, the intentional, harmful reuse of technology and scientific artefacts, is a problem yet to be well-defined within the context of Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, as NLP technologies continue to advance and become increasingly widespread in society, their inner workings have become increasingly opaque. Therefore, understanding dual use concerns and potential ways of limiting them is critical to minimising the potential harms of research and development. In this paper, we conduct a survey of NLP researchers and practitioners to understand the depth and their perspective of the problem as well as to assess existing available support. Based on the results of our survey, we offer a definition of dual use that is tailored to the needs of the NLP community. The survey revealed that a majority of researchers are concerned about the potential dual use of their research but only take limited action toward it. In light of the survey results, we discuss the current state and potential means for mitigating dual use in NLP and propose a checklist that can be integrated into existing conference ethics-frameworks, e.g., the ACL ethics checklist.

The proliferation of harmful content on online platforms is a major societal problem, which comes in many different forms including hate speech, offensive language, bullying and harassment, misinformation, spam, violence, graphic content, sexual abuse, self harm, and many other. Online platforms seek to moderate such content to limit societal harm, to comply with legislation, and to create a more inclusive environment for their users. Researchers have developed different methods for automatically detecting harmful content, often focusing on specific sub-problems or on narrow communities, as what is considered harmful often depends on the platform and on the context. We argue that there is currently a dichotomy between what types of harmful content online platforms seek to curb, and what research efforts there are to automatically detect such content. We thus survey existing methods as well as content moderation policies by online platforms in this light and we suggest directions for future work.

Stance Detection is concerned with identifying the attitudes expressed by an author towards a target of interest. This task spans a variety of domains ranging from social media opinion identification to detecting the stance for a legal claim. However, the framing of the task varies within these domains, in terms of the data collection protocol, the label dictionary and the number of available annotations. Furthermore, these stance annotations are significantly imbalanced on a per-topic and inter-topic basis. These make multi-domain stance detection a challenging task, requiring standardization and domain adaptation. To overcome this challenge, we propose $\textbf{T}$opic $\textbf{E}$fficient $\textbf{St}$anc$\textbf{E}$ $\textbf{D}$etection (TESTED), consisting of a topic-guided diversity sampling technique and a contrastive objective that is used for fine-tuning a stance classifier. We evaluate the method on an existing benchmark of $16$ datasets with in-domain, i.e. all topics seen and out-of-domain, i.e. unseen topics, experiments. The results show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art with an average of $3.5$ F1 points increase in-domain, and is more generalizable with an averaged increase of $10.2$ F1 on out-of-domain evaluation while using $\leq10\%$ of the training data. We show that our sampling technique mitigates both inter- and per-topic class imbalances. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that the contrastive learning objective allows the model a more pronounced segmentation of samples with varying labels.

Language embeds information about social, cultural, and political values people hold. Prior work has explored social and potentially harmful biases encoded in Pre-Trained Language models (PTLMs). However, there has been no systematic study investigating how values embedded in these models vary across cultures. In this paper, we introduce probes to study which values across cultures are embedded in these models, and whether they align with existing theories and cross-cultural value surveys. We find that PTLMs capture differences in values across cultures, but those only weakly align with established value surveys. We discuss implications of using mis-aligned models in cross-cultural settings, as well as ways of aligning PTLMs with value surveys.

Recently, novel multi-hop models and datasets have been introduced to achieve more complex natural language reasoning with neural networks. One notable task that requires multi-hop reasoning is fact checking, where a chain of connected evidence pieces leads to the final verdict of a claim. However, existing datasets do not provide annotations for the gold evidence pieces, which is a critical aspect for improving the explainability of fact checking systems. The only exception is the FEVER dataset, which is artificially constructed based on Wikipedia and does not use naturally occurring political claims and evidence pages, which is more challenging. Most claims in FEVER only have one evidence sentence associated with them and require no reasoning to make label predictions -- the small number of instances with two evidence sentences only require simple reasoning. In this paper, we study how to perform more complex claim verification on naturally occurring claims with multiple hops over evidence chunks. We first construct a small annotated dataset, PolitiHop, of reasoning chains for claim verification. We then compare the dataset to other existing multi-hop datasets and study how to transfer knowledge from more extensive in- and out-of-domain resources to PolitiHop. We find that the task is complex, and achieve the best performance using an architecture that specifically models reasoning over evidence chains in combination with in-domain transfer learning.