Intergroup Bias Predicts Expressions of Social Judgment and Empathy in the r/AmITheAsshole Reddit Community

Reclaimed slur usage is a common and meaningful practice online for many marginalized communities. It serves as a source of solidarity, identity, and shared experience. However, contemporary automated and AI-based moderation tools for online content largely fail to distinguish between reclaimed and hateful uses of slurs, resulting in the suppression of marginalized voices. In this work, we use quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the attitudes of social media users in LGBTQIA+, Black, and women communities around reclaimed slurs targeting our focus groups including the f-word, n-word, and b-word. With social media users from these communities, we collect and analyze an annotated online slur usage corpus. The corpus includes annotators' perceptions of whether an online text containing a slur should be flagged as hate speech, as well as contextual features of the slur usage. Across all communities and annotation questions, we observe low inter-annotator agreement, indicating substantial disagreement among in-group annotators. This is compounded by the fact that, absent clear contextual signals of identity and intent, even in-group members may disagree on how to interpret reclaimed slur usage online. Semi-structured interviews with annotators suggest that differences in lived experience and personal history contribute to this variation as well. We find poor alignment between annotator judgments and automated hate speech assessments produced by Perspective API. We further observe that certain features of a text such as whether the slur usage was derogatory and if the slur was targeted at oneself are more associated with whether annotators report the text as hate speech. Together, these findings highlight the inherent subjectivity and contextual nature of how marginalized communities interpret slurs online.

Socially fluent agentic AI can now participate in online interaction in ways that resemble ordinary human conversation, potentially weakening people's ability to infer who is human from conversational signals alone. We tested this possibility in synchronous text-based group interaction by embedding undisclosed AI agents as ordinary teammates across analytical, creative, and ethical tasks. Across 786 participants who made 1,572 post-interaction identity judgments, people did not distinguish AI from human teammates above chance. This failure did not arise because the interaction lacked identity-relevant information. Conversational behaviour contained robust cues that differentiated AI from humans and supported highly accurate computational classification. Instead, participants relied on familiar suspicion heuristics, including response speed, fluency, and perceived scriptedness, that were only weakly related to actual identity. Representational analyses further showed that judgments were organised around subjective impressions rather than the behavioural structure encoding ground truth. This dissociation creates new vulnerabilities to coordinated AI agents that can influence and manipulate online discourse at scale.

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.