Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

What is it like to program with artificial intelligence?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2208.06213 v2 pith:QCFJOVSE submitted 2022-08-12 cs.HC cs.AIcs.PL

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.PL
keywords programmingllm-assistedlanguagelargemodelschallengesdrawexperience
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models, such as OpenAI's codex and Deepmind's AlphaCode, can generate code to solve a variety of problems expressed in natural language. This technology has already been commercialised in at least one widely-used programming editor extension: GitHub Copilot. In this paper, we explore how programming with large language models (LLM-assisted programming) is similar to, and differs from, prior conceptualisations of programmer assistance. We draw upon publicly available experience reports of LLM-assisted programming, as well as prior usability and design studies. We find that while LLM-assisted programming shares some properties of compilation, pair programming, and programming via search and reuse, there are fundamental differences both in the technical possibilities as well as the practical experience. Thus, LLM-assisted programming ought to be viewed as a new way of programming with its own distinct properties and challenges. Finally, we draw upon observations from a user study in which non-expert end user programmers use LLM-assisted tools for solving data tasks in spreadsheets. We discuss the issues that might arise, and open research challenges, in applying large language models to end-user programming, particularly with users who have little or no programming expertise.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 46 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Developers' Experience with Generative AI Beyond Productivity Assessment -- Insights from an Empirical Mixed-Methods Field Study

    cs.SE 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mixed-methods study shows developers prefer GenAI for repetitive tasks, benefit from single interaction modes but not combined ones, and gain awareness from study participation.

  2. Developers' Experience with Generative AI -- First Insights from an Empirical Mixed-Methods Field Study

    cs.HC 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Moderate single-mode Copilot use improved developer efficiency and reduced workload, while combined or excessive use diminished these benefits, and chat use improved task completion.

  3. SimStep: Chain-of-Abstractions for Incremental Specification and Debugging of AI-Generated Interactive Simulations

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SimStep guides teachers through four editable graph abstractions (concepts, scenario, learning goals, UI interactions) to generate and debug AI-built simulations without writing code.

  4. From Legal Text to Tech Specs: Generative AI's Interpretation of Consent in Privacy Law

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An LLM pipeline that flags and fixes non-compliant consent use cases works imperfectly: it catches about two-thirds of relevant cases with reasoning prompts, and most of its fixes are legally sound but logically inconsistent.

Pith tools