Large Language Models (LLMs) have raised increasing concerns about their misuse in generating hate speech. Among all the efforts to address this issue, hate speech detectors play a crucial role. However, the effectiveness of different detectors against LLM-generated hate speech remains largely unknown. In this paper, we propose HateBench, a framework for benchmarking hate speech detectors on LLM-generated hate speech. We first construct a hate speech dataset of 7,838 samples generated by six widely-used LLMs covering 34 identity groups, with meticulous annotations by three labelers. We then assess the effectiveness of eight representative hate speech detectors on the LLM-generated dataset. Our results show that while detectors are generally effective in identifying LLM-generated hate speech, their performance degrades with newer versions of LLMs. We also reveal the potential of LLM-driven hate campaigns, a new threat that LLMs bring to the field of hate speech detection. By leveraging advanced techniques like adversarial attacks and model stealing attacks, the adversary can intentionally evade the detector and automate hate campaigns online. The most potent adversarial attack achieves an attack success rate of 0.966, and its attack efficiency can be further improved by $13-21\times$ through model stealing attacks with acceptable attack performance. We hope our study can serve as a call to action for the research community and platform moderators to fortify defenses against these emerging threats.

Open-generation bias benchmarks evaluate social biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) by analyzing their outputs. However, the classifiers used in analysis often have inherent biases, leading to unfair conclusions. This study examines such biases in open-generation benchmarks like BOLD and SAGED. Using the MGSD dataset, we conduct two experiments. The first uses counterfactuals to measure prediction variations across demographic groups by altering stereotype-related prefixes. The second applies explainability tools (SHAP) to validate that the observed biases stem from these counterfactuals. Results reveal unequal treatment of demographic descriptors, calling for more robust bias metric models.

Language is a dynamic aspect of our culture that changes when expressed in different technologies/communities. Online social networks have enabled the diffusion and evolution of different dialects, including African American English (AAE). However, this increased usage is not without barriers. One particular barrier is how sentiment (Vader, TextBlob, and Flair) and toxicity (Google's Perspective and the open-source Detoxify) methods present biases towards utterances with AAE expressions. Consider Google's Perspective to understand bias. Here, an utterance such as ``All n*ggers deserve to die respectfully. The police murder us.'' it reaches a higher toxicity than ``African-Americans deserve to die respectfully. The police murder us.''. This score difference likely arises because the tool cannot understand the re-appropriation of the term ``n*gger''. One explanation for this bias is that AI models are trained on limited datasets, and using such a term in training data is more likely to appear in a toxic utterance. While this may be plausible, the tool will make mistakes regardless. Here, we study bias on two Web-based (YouTube and Twitter) datasets and two spoken English datasets. Our analysis shows how most models present biases towards AAE in most settings. We isolate the impact of AAE expression usage via linguistic control features from the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software, grammatical control features extracted via Part-of-Speech (PoS) tagging from Natural Language Processing (NLP) models, and the semantic of utterances by comparing sentence embeddings from recent language models. We present consistent results on how a heavy usage of AAE expressions may cause the speaker to be considered substantially more toxic, even when speaking about nearly the same subject. Our study complements similar analyses focusing on small datasets and/or one method only.

Research in toxicity detection in natural language processing for the speech modality (audio-based) is quite limited, particularly for languages other than English. To address these limitations and lay the groundwork for truly multilingual audio-based toxicity detection, we introduce MuTox, the first highly multilingual audio-based dataset with toxicity labels. The dataset comprises 20,000 audio utterances for English and Spanish, and 4,000 for the other 19 languages. To demonstrate the quality of this dataset, we trained the MuTox audio-based toxicity classifier, which enables zero-shot toxicity detection across a wide range of languages. This classifier outperforms existing text-based trainable classifiers by more than 1% AUC, while expanding the language coverage more than tenfold. When compared to a wordlist-based classifier that covers a similar number of languages, MuTox improves precision and recall by approximately 2.5 times. This significant improvement underscores the potential of MuTox in advancing the field of audio-based toxicity detection.

Originally published on Towards AI the World's Leading AI and Technology News and Media Company. If you are building an AI-related product or service, we invite you to consider becoming an AI sponsor. At Towards AI, we help scale AI and technology startups. Let us help you unleash your technology to the masses. This post walks through two methods to identify toxic comments as part of the 4th Jigsaw Rate Severity of Toxic Comments competition.