Human evaluations are typically considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but as models' fluency improves, how well can evaluators detect and judge machinegenerated text? We run a study assessing nonexperts' ability to distinguish between humanand machine-authored text (GPT2 and GPT3) in three domains (stories, news articles, and recipes). We find that, without training, evaluators distinguished between GPT3-and humanauthored text at random chance level. We explore three approaches for quickly training evaluators to better identify GPT3-authored text (detailed instructions, annotated examples, and paired examples) and find that while evaluators' accuracy improved up to 55%, it did not significantly improve across the three domains. Given the inconsistent results across text domains and the often contradictory reasons evaluators gave for their judgments, we examine the role untrained human evaluations play in NLG evaluation and provide recommendations to NLG researchers for improving human evaluations of text generated from state-of-the-art models.

Human evaluations are typically considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but as models' fluency improves, how well can evaluators detect and judge machinegenerated text? We run a study assessing nonexperts' ability to distinguish between humanand machine-authored text (GPT2 and GPT3) in three domains (stories, news articles, and recipes). We find that, without training, evaluators distinguished between GPT3-and humanauthored text at random chance level. We explore three approaches for quickly training evaluators to better identify GPT3-authored text (detailed instructions, annotated examples, and paired examples) and find that while evaluators' accuracy improved up to 55%, it did not significantly improve across the three domains. Given the inconsistent results across text domains and the often contradictory reasons evaluators gave for their judgments, we examine the role untrained human evaluations play in NLG evaluation and provide recommendations to NLG researchers for improving human evaluations of text generated from state-of-the-art models.

Communicating complex scientific ideas without misleading or overwhelming the public is challenging. While science communication guides exist, they rarely offer empirical evidence for how their strategies are used in practice. Writing strategies that can be automatically recognized could greatly support science communication efforts by enabling tools to detect and suggest strategies for writers. We compile a set of writing strategies drawn from a wide range of prescriptive sources and develop an annotation scheme allowing humans to recognize them. We collect a corpus of 128K science writing documents in English and annotate a subset of this corpus. 1 We use the annotations to train transformer-based classifiers and measure the strategies' use in the larger corpus. We find that the use of strategies, such as storytelling and emphasizing the most important findings, varies significantly across publications with different reader audiences.

Many people struggling with mental health issues are unable to access adequate care due to high costs and a shortage of mental health professionals, leading to a global mental health crisis. Online mental health communities can help mitigate this crisis by offering a scalable, easily accessible alternative to in-person sessions with therapists or support groups. However, people seeking emotional or psychological support online may be especially vulnerable to the kinds of antisocial behavior that sometimes occur in online discussions. Moderation can improve online discourse quality, but we lack an understanding of its effects on online mental health conversations.In this work, we leveraged a natural experiment, occurring across 200,000 messages from 7,000 online mental health conversations, to evaluate the effects of moderation on online mental health discussions. We found that participation in group mental health discussions led to improvements in psychological perspective, and that these improvements were larger in moderated conversations. The presence of a moderator increased user engagement, encouraged users to discuss negative emotions more candidly, and dramatically reduced bad behavior among chat participants. Moderation also encouraged stronger linguistic coordination, which is indicative of trust building. In addition, moderators who remained active in conversations were especially successful in keeping conversations on topic. Our findings suggest that moderation can serve as a valuable tool to improve the efficacy and safety of online mental health conversations. Based on these findings, we discuss implications and trade-offs involved in designing effective online spaces for mental health support.

When seeking information not covered in patient-friendly documents, healthcare consumers may turn to the research literature. Reading medical papers, however, can be a challenging experience. To improve access to medical papers, we explore four features enabled by natural language processing: definitions of unfamiliar terms, in-situ plain language section summaries, a collection of key questions that guides readers to answering passages, and plain language summaries of those passages. We embody these features into a prototype system, Paper Plain . We evaluate Paper Plain , finding that participants who used the prototype system had an easier time reading research papers without a loss in paper comprehension compared to those who used a typical PDF reader. Altogether, the study results suggest that guiding readers to relevant passages and providing plain language summaries alongside the original paper content can make reading medical papers easier and give readers more confidence to approach these papers.