Trusting CHATGPT: how minor tweaks in the prompts lead to major differences in sentiment classification
Abstract
One fundamental question for the social sciences today is: how much can we trust highly complex predictive models like ChatGPT? This study tests the hypothesis that subtle changes in the structure of prompts do not produce significant variations in the classification results of sentiment polarity analysis generated by the Large Language Model GPT-4o mini. Using a dataset of 100.000 comments in Spanish on four Latin American presidents, the model classified the comments as positive, negative, or neutral on 10 occasions, varying the prompts slightly each time. The experimental methodology included exploratory and confirmatory analyses to identify significant discrepancies among classifications. The results reveal that even minor modifications to prompts such as lexical, syntactic, or modal changes, or even their lack of structure impact the classifications. In certain cases, the model produced inconsistent responses, such as mixing categories, providing unsolicited explanations, or using languages other than Spanish. Statistical analysis using Chi-square tests confirmed significant differences in most comparisons between prompts, except in one case where linguistic structures were highly similar. These findings challenge the robustness and trust of Large Language Models for classification tasks, highlighting their vulnerability to variations in instructions. Moreover, it was evident that the lack of structured grammar in prompts increases the frequency of hallucinations. The discussion underscores that trust in Large Language Models is based not only on technical performance but also on the social and institutional relationships underpinning their use.