Given the widespread use of LLM-powered conversational agents such as ChatGPT, analyzing the ways people interact with them could provide valuable insights into human behavior. Prior work has shown that these agents are sometimes used in sexual contexts, such as to obtain advice, to role-play as sexual companions, or to generate erotica. While LGBTQ+ acceptance has increased in recent years, dehumanizing practices against minorities continue to prevail. In this paper, we hone in on this and perform an analysis of dehumanizing tendencies toward LGBTQ+ individuals by human users in their sexual interactions with ChatGPT. Through a series of experiments that model various concept vectors associated with distinct shades of dehumanization, we find evidence of the reproduction of harmful stereotypes. However, many user prompts lack indications of dehumanization, suggesting that the use of these agents is a complex and nuanced issue which warrants further investigation.

The mainstream media has much leeway in what it chooses to cover and how it covers it. These choices have real-world consequences on what people know and their subsequent behaviors. However, the lack of objective measures to evaluate editorial choices makes research in this area particularly difficult. In this paper, we argue that there are newsworthy topics where objective measures exist in the form of supporting data and propose a computational framework to analyze editorial choices in this setup. We focus on the economy because the reporting of economic indicators presents us with a relatively easy way to determine both the selection and framing of various publications. Their values provide a ground truth of how the economy is doing relative to how the publications choose to cover it. To do this, we define frame prediction as a set of interdependent tasks. At the article level, we learn to identify the reported stance towards the general state of the economy. Then, for every numerical quantity reported in the article, we learn to identify whether it corresponds to an economic indicator and whether it is being reported in a positive or negative way. To perform our analysis, we track six American publishers and each article that appeared in the top 10 slots of their landing page between 2015 and 2023.

With the rise in the prevalence of cross-disciplinary research, there is a need to develop methods to characterize its practices. Current computational methods to evaluate interdisciplinary engagement—such as affiliation diversity, keywords, and citation patterns—are insufficient to model the degree of engagement between disciplines, as well as the way in which the complementary expertise of co-authors is harnessed. In this paper, we propose an automated framework to address some of these issues on a large scale. Our framework tracks interdisciplinary citations in scientific articles and models: 1) the section and position in which they appear, and 2) the argumentative role that they play in the writing. To showcase our framework, we perform a preliminary analysis of interdisciplinary engagement in published work at the intersection of natural language processing and computational social science in the last decade.