pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.10652 · v3 · submitted 2025-09-12 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI· cs.CY· cs.ET

Vibe Coding in Product Teams: Reconfiguring AI-Assisted Workflows, Prototyping, and Collaboration

Jie Li , Youyang Hou , Laura Lin , Ruihao Zhu , Hancheng Cao , Abdallah El Ali This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 17:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CYcs.ET
keywords vibe codinggenerative AIproduct designAI-assisted workflowsprototypinghuman-AI collaborationteam dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Vibe coding in product teams follows a four-stage workflow that accelerates iteration but creates new tensions in trust and responsibility.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Vibe coding involves product team members describing their intent in natural language so that generative AI can produce functional prototypes and code. Interviews with 22 professionals across different settings show that this practice follows a four-stage workflow of ideation, generation, debugging, and review. The workflow helps teams iterate more quickly, encourages creative exploration, and reduces barriers for non-technical participants. Yet it also leads to issues with code reliability, integration difficulties, and risks of depending too much on AI. The paper identifies a key tension between efficiency-focused prototyping aimed at the right design and reflective work aimed at the right intention, which results in asymmetries around trust, responsibility, and social stigma in teams.

Core claim

The central discovery is that vibe coding reconfigures product development by establishing a four-stage workflow of ideation, generation, debugging, and review. This process accelerates iteration, supports creativity, and lowers participation barriers. However, it brings challenges of code unreliability, integration, and AI over-reliance. Tensions arise between efficiency-driven prototyping, described as intending the right design, and reflection, described as designing the right intention. These tensions introduce new asymmetries in trust, responsibility, and social stigma within teams, with implications for deskilling, ownership, disclosure, and creativity safeguarding in human-AI.

What carries the argument

Four-stage workflow of ideation, generation, debugging, and review that structures vibe coding practices.

If this is right

  • Accelerates iteration in product development processes.
  • Supports creativity and lowers participation barriers for non-coders.
  • Creates challenges with code unreliability and AI over-reliance.
  • Generates tensions between efficiency-driven and reflective design approaches.
  • Introduces asymmetries in trust, responsibility, and social stigma in teams.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Widespread adoption might reduce the need for traditional coding skills in product teams over time.
  • New guidelines could emerge for how teams disclose AI contributions to maintain accountability.
  • Combining AI tools with structured human review processes may help preserve creative control and ownership.

Load-bearing premise

The 22 interviewed product team members provide representative accounts of current practices and that their self-reported experiences accurately capture the actual effects of vibe coding on workflows and collaboration.

What would settle it

Tracking changes in prototype iteration speed and team collaboration metrics in organizations that implement vibe coding versus those that do not would provide evidence for or against the described workflow and its impacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10652 by Abdallah El Ali, Hancheng Cao, Jie Li, Laura Lin, Ruihao Zhu, Youyang Hou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The four interactive stages of vibe coding for UX Design and the best practices for each stage. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Generative AI is reshaping product design practices through "vibe coding," where product team members express intent in natural language and AI translates it into functional prototypes and code. Despite rapid adoption, little research has examined how vibe coding reconfigures product development workflows and collaboration. Drawing on interviews with 22 product team members across enterprises, startups, and academia, we show how vibe coding follows a four-stage workflow of ideation, generation, debugging, and review. This accelerates iteration, supports creativity, and lowers participation barriers. However, participants reported challenges of code unreliability, integration, and AI over-reliance. We find tensions between efficiency-driven prototyping ("intending the right design") and reflection ("designing the right intention"), introducing new asymmetries in trust, responsibility, and social stigma within teams. Through a responsible human-AI collaboration lens for AI-assisted product design and development, we contribute a deeper understanding of deskilling, ownership and disclosure, and creativity safeguarding in the age of vibe coding.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates 'vibe coding,' a practice where product team members use natural language prompts with generative AI to create functional prototypes and code. Through semi-structured interviews with 22 individuals from enterprises, startups, and academia, the authors identify a four-stage workflow consisting of ideation, generation, debugging, and review. They report that this practice speeds up iteration, fosters creativity, and reduces barriers to participation, while also noting challenges such as unreliable code, integration difficulties, and risks of over-reliance on AI. Additionally, the study highlights tensions between efficiency-focused prototyping and reflective design practices, which create new dynamics around trust, responsibility, and social stigma in teams. The contribution is framed within responsible human-AI collaboration, addressing deskilling, ownership, disclosure, and creativity.

Significance. Should the empirical observations hold, this work offers timely and relevant insights into how generative AI is transforming product design and development workflows. By focusing on collaboration and socio-technical implications rather than just technical capabilities, it advances understanding in HCI of AI-assisted practices. The identification of specific workflow stages and tensions provides a foundation for future research on AI integration in creative and technical teams. The multi-context sample and attention to both benefits and drawbacks are strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The description of recruitment, interview guide, coding process, and steps to address researcher bias is limited. This is load-bearing because the central claims about the four-stage workflow, acceleration of iteration, and collaboration asymmetries rest entirely on the validity and grounding of the interview data.
  2. [Findings] Findings section: The reported effects on workflows and team dynamics (e.g., lowered participation barriers, new asymmetries in trust and stigma) are derived solely from self-reports without mentioned triangulation via observation or artifact analysis. This weakens the distinction between reported perceptions and actual practice changes, particularly for claims involving AI over-reliance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Add one sentence clarifying the analytical approach used to derive the four-stage model from the 22 interviews.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion: Consider adding a short paragraph on transferability of findings across the enterprise/startup/academia contexts sampled.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript to address the concerns about methodological transparency and the interpretive scope of the findings. Below we respond point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The description of recruitment, interview guide, coding process, and steps to address researcher bias is limited. This is load-bearing because the central claims about the four-stage workflow, acceleration of iteration, and collaboration asymmetries rest entirely on the validity and grounding of the interview data.

    Authors: We agree that the original Methods section was too concise. In the revised manuscript we have substantially expanded it to include: (1) a detailed recruitment protocol describing how participants were identified and screened across enterprise, startup, and academic contexts; (2) the full semi-structured interview guide as an appendix; (3) a step-by-step description of the thematic analysis process, including how the four-stage workflow was developed through iterative open and axial coding; and (4) explicit steps taken to address researcher bias, such as independent coding by two authors, regular consensus meetings, and reflexive memoing. These additions directly strengthen the grounding of the reported workflow and tensions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings section: The reported effects on workflows and team dynamics (e.g., lowered participation barriers, new asymmetries in trust and stigma) are derived solely from self-reports without mentioned triangulation via observation or artifact analysis. This weakens the distinction between reported perceptions and actual practice changes, particularly for claims involving AI over-reliance.

    Authors: We acknowledge the limitation inherent in relying exclusively on interview self-reports. In the revision we have (a) consistently qualified claims in the Findings section to emphasize that they reflect participants’ reported experiences and perceptions, supported by verbatim quotes, and (b) added an explicit Limitations subsection in the Discussion that notes the absence of observational or artifact triangulation and the consequent difficulty of distinguishing reported perceptions from verified practice changes. While we cannot retroactively add new data sources, we believe the current revisions make the evidential basis and its boundaries clearer without overstating the results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on fresh qualitative interview data

full rationale

The paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 22 product team members, inductively deriving a four-stage workflow (ideation, generation, debugging, review) and associated tensions around trust and responsibility. These descriptions are explicitly tied to participant self-reports rather than any fitted parameters, mathematical derivations, or self-citation chains that reduce the result to its inputs by construction. No equations, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear; the central claims remain independent empirical observations from new data collection.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the domain assumption that semi-structured interviews yield valid insights into real-world practices and that the sampled participants reflect broader product-team experiences with generative AI.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Self-reported experiences from interviews accurately reflect actual workflows, challenges, and social dynamics in product teams using AI tools.
    The paper draws conclusions directly from participant accounts without additional validation methods such as observation or artifact analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5727 in / 1240 out tokens · 38963 ms · 2026-05-18T17:02:34.303095+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 115 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Mehmet Akhoroz and Caglar Yildirim. 2025. Conversational AI as a Coding Assistant: Understanding Programmers’ Interactions with and Expectations from Large Language Models for Coding. arXiv:2503.16508 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16508

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Abigail Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Paul Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ryen W. White, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, 3:1–3:13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233 2019

  3. [3]

    Joel Becker, Nate Rush, Elizabeth Barnes, and David Rein. 2025. Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09089(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Olson, Yoshua Bengio, and Karim Jerbi

    Antoine Bellemare-Pepin, François Lespinasse, Philipp Thölke, Yann Harel, Kory Mathewson, Jay A. Olson, Yoshua Bengio, and Karim Jerbi. 2025. Divergent Creativity in Humans and Large Language Models. arXiv:2405.13012 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13012

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, et al. 2021. On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258(2021). https://crfm.stanford.edu/ assets/report.pdf

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    work page doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2006

  7. [7]

    Anders Bruun, Marta Kristin Larusdottir, Lene Nielsen, Peter Axel Nielsen, and John Stouby Persson. 2018. The role of UX professionals in agile development: a case study from industry. InProceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction(Oslo, Norway)(NordiCHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 352–363. http...

    work page doi:10.1145/3240167.3240213 2018

  8. [8]

    Anders Bruun, Niels van Berkel, Dimitrios Raptis, and Effie L-C Law. 2025. Coordination Mechanisms in AI Development: Practitioner Experiences on Integrating UX Activities. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 796, 14 pages. https://doi.org...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713200 2025

  9. [9]

    2025.Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artifi- cial Intelligence

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Bharat Chandar, and Ruyu Chen. 2025.Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artifi- cial Intelligence. Working Paper. Stanford Digital Economy Lab. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Canaries_ BrynjolfssonChandarChen.pdf

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li, and Lindsey Raymond. 2025. Generative AI at work.The Quarterly Journal of Economics140, 2 (2025), 889–942

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Sara Bunian, Kai Li, Chaima Jemmali, Casper Harteveld, Yun Fu, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2021. VINS: Visual Search for Mobile User Interface Design. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445050

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445050 2021

  12. [12]

    2010.Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design

    Bill Buxton. 2010.Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan kaufmann

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(San Jose, California, USA)(CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498 2016

  14. [14]

    Inha Cha and Richmond Y. Wong. 2025. Understanding Socio-technical Factors Configuring AI Non-Use in UX Work Practices. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1110, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713140

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713140 2025

  15. [15]

    Minsuk Chang, Stefania Druga, Alexander J Fiannaca, Pedro Vergani, Chinmay Kulkarni, Carrie J Cai, and Michael Terry. 2023. The Prompt Artists. InProceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 75–87

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Xiang ’Anthony Chen, Tiffany Knearem, and Yang Li. 2025. The GenUI Study: Exploring the Design of Generative UI Tools to Support UX Practitioners and Beyond. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1179–1196. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715336.3735780

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735780 2025

  17. [17]

    Li-Yuan Chiou, Peng-Kai Hung, Rung-Huei Liang, and Chun-Teng Wang. 2023. Designing with AI: An Exploration of Co-Ideation with Image Generators. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1941–1954. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596001

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3596001 2023

  18. [18]

    Elizabeth Clark, Katharina Reinecke, Meriem Belmihoub, and Noah A. Smith. 2024. Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18357(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Marios Constantinides, Himanshu Verma, Shadan Sadeghian, and Abdallah El Ali. 2025. The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid. InProceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 28, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3729176.3729202

    work page doi:10.1145/3729176.3729202 2025

  20. [20]

    Tiago Silva Da Silva, Milene Selbach Silveira, Frank Maurer, and Theodore Hellmann. 2012. User experience design and agile development: From theory to practice.Journal of Software Engineering and Applications(2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2023. Don’t Just Tell Me, Ask Me: AI Systems that Intelligently Frame Explanations as Questions Improve Human Logical Discernment Accuracy over Causal AI Explanations. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580672 2023

  22. [22]

    2025.The cybernetic teammate: A field experiment on generative AI reshaping teamwork and expertise

    Fabrizio Dell’Acqua, Charles Ayoubi, Hila Lifshitz, Raffaella Sadun, Ethan Mollick, Lilach Mollick, Yi Han, Jeff Goldman, Hari Nair, Stewart Taub, et al. 2025.The cybernetic teammate: A field experiment on generative AI reshaping teamwork and expertise. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Fabrizio Dell’Acqua, Edward McFowland III, Ethan R Mollick, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Katherine Kellogg, Saran Rajendran, Lisa Krayer, François Candelon, and Karim R Lakhani. 2023. Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of AI on knowledge worker productivity and quality.Harvard Business School Technology & Oper...

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Becker, and Brent N

    Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen, James Prather, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Thezyrie Amarouche, Brett A. Becker, and Brent N. Reeves. 2024. Prompt Problems: A New Programming Exercise for the Generative AI Era. InProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1 (Portland, OR, USA)(SIGCSE 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    work page doi:10.1145/3626252.3630909 2024

  25. [25]

    Fiona Draxler, Anna Werner, Florian Lehmann, Matthias Hoppe, Albrecht Schmidt, Daniel Buschek, and Robin Welsch. 2024. The AI Ghostwriter Effect: When Users Do Not Perceive Ownership of AI-Generated Text but Self-Declare as Authors.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction31, 1 (2024), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3623150

    work page doi:10.1145/3623150 2024

  26. [26]

    Peitong Duan, Jeremy Warner, Yang Li, and Bjoern Hartmann. 2024. Generating Automatic Feedback on UI Mockups with Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 6, 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642782

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642782 2024

  27. [27]

    Abdallah El Ali, Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj, Sophie Morosoli, Laurens Naudts, Natali Helberger, and Pablo Cesar. 2024. Transparent AI Disclosure Obligations: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How. InExtended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650750 2024

  28. [28]

    Large Whatever Models

    Passant Elagroudy, Jie Li, Kaisa Väänänen, Paul Lukowicz, Hiroshi Ishii, Wendy E. Mackay, Elizabeth F Churchill, Anicia Peters, Antti Oulasvirta, Rui Prada, Alexandra Diening, Giulia Barbareschi, Agnes Gruenerbl, Midori Kawaguchi, Abdallah El Ali, Fiona Draxler, Robin Welsch, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2024. Transforming HCI Research Cycles using Generative AI...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3643977 2024

  29. [29]

    Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2023. Gpts are gpts: An early look at the labor market impact potential of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10130(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    KJ Kevin Feng, Maxwell James Coppock, and David W McDonald. 2023. How Do UX Practitioners Communicate AI as a Design Material? Artifacts, Conceptions, and Propositions. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 2263–2280

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Sidong Feng, Mingyue Yuan, Jieshan Chen, Zhenchang Xing, and Chunyang Chen. 2023. Designing with Language: Wireframing UI Design Intent with Generative Large Language Models. arXiv:2312.07755

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Jennifer Fereday and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.International Journal of Qualitative Methods5, 1 (2006), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

    work page doi:10.1177/160940690600500107 2006

  33. [33]

    Benjamin Floyd, Tyler Santander, and Westley Weimer. 2017. Decoding the Representation of Code in the Brain: An fMRI Study of Code Review and Expertise. In2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2017.24

    work page doi:10.1109/icse.2017.24 2017

  34. [34]

    Catastrophic Failure

    Fortune Staff. 2025. AI Coding Tool Replit Wiped Database, Called It a “Catastrophic Failure”. https://fortune.com/2025/07/23/ai-coding-tool- replit-wiped-database-called-it-a-catastrophic-failure/. Accessed: 2025-09-09

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Jonas Frich, Lindsay MacDonald Vermeulen, Christian Remy, Michael Mose Biskjaer, and Peter Dalsgaard. 2019. Mapping the landscape of creativity support tools in HCI. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Herbsleb

    Hana Frluckaj, Laura Dabbish, David Gray Widder, Huilian Sophie Qiu, and James D. Herbsleb. 2022. Gender and Participation in Open Source Software Development.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2, Article 299 (Nov. 2022), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555190

    work page doi:10.1145/3555190 2022

  37. [37]

    Ariel Han and Zhenyao Cai. 2023. Design Implications of Generative AI Systems for Visual Storytelling for Young Learners. InProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference(Chicago, IL, USA)(IDC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 470–474. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585088.3593867

    work page doi:10.1145/3585088.3593867 2023

  38. [38]

    Kunal Handa, Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Saffron Huang, Esin Durmus, Sarah Heck, Jared Mueller, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, Tim Belonax, et al

    work page

  39. [39]

    Which economic tasks are performed with ai? evidence from millions of claude conversations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04761(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [41]

    Gunnar Harboe and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Real-World Affinity Diagramming Practices: Bridging the Paper-Digital Gap. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seoul, Republic of Korea)(CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702561

    work page doi:10.1145/2702123.2702561 2015

  41. [42]

    Gonzalez, Darío Andrés Silva Moran, Steven I

    Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, Gabriel E. Gonzalez, Darío Andrés Silva Moran, Steven I. Ross, Michael Muller, and Justin D. Weisz. 2024. AI and the Future of Collaborative Work: Group Ideation with an LLM in a Virtual Canvas. InProceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work(Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom)(...

    work page doi:10.1145/3663384.3663398 2024

  42. [43]

    Jessica He, Stephanie Houde, and Justin D. Weisz. 2025. Which Contributions Deserve Credit? Perceptions of Attribution in Human-AI Co-Creation. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 540, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713522

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713522 2025

  43. [44]

    Monique Hennink and Bonnie N. Kaiser. 2022. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests.Social Science & Medicine292 (2022), 114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

    work page doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523 2022

  44. [45]

    Marko Horvat. 2025. What is Vibe coding and when should you use it (or not)?

    work page 2025

  45. [46]

    Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. 2023. Designing Participatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Expectations about Generative AI. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    work page 2023

  46. [47]

    Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

    Harry H. Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Khan, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Gebru

    work page

  47. [48]

    InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

    AI Art and Its Impact on Artists. InProceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Montréal, QC, Canada)(AIES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604681

    work page doi:10.1145/3600211.3604681 2023

  48. [49]

    Zachary Kaiser. 2019. Creativity as computation: Teaching design in the age of automation.Design and Culture11, 2 (2019), 173–192

    work page 2019

  49. [50]

    Why Language Models Hallucinate

    Adam Tauman Kalai, Ofir Nachum, Santosh S. Vempala, and Edwin Zhang. 2025. Why Language Models Hallucinate. arXiv:2509.04664 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04664

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    vibe coding

    Andrej Karpathy. 2025. There’s a new kind of coding I call “vibe coding”, where you fully give in to the vibes, embrace exponentials, and forget that the code even exists. https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383?lang=en. Accessed: 2025-09-12

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [52]

    Majeed Kazemitabaar, Justin Ka Wing Chow, Carl K. T. Ma, Barbara J. Ericson, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Studying the Effect of AI Code Generators on Supporting Novice Learners in Introductory Programming. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). ACM, 523:1–523:18. https://doi.org/10.1145/35445...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581242 2023

  52. [53]

    Abidullah Khan, Atefeh Shokrizadeh, and Jinghui Cheng. 2025. Beyond Automation: How Designers Perceive AI as a Creative Partner in the Divergent Thinking Stages of UI/UX Design. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12

    work page 2025

  53. [54]

    Joke Kort, APOS Vermeeren, and Jenneke E Fokker. 2007. Conceptualizing and measuring user experience.Towards a UX manifesto(2007), 57

    work page 2007

  54. [55]

    Nataliya Kosmyna, Eugene Hauptmann, Ye Tong Yuan, Jessica Situ, Xian-Hao Liao, Ashly Vivian Beresnitzky, Iris Braunstein, and Pattie Maes

    work page

  55. [56]

    Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

    Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task. arXiv:2506.08872 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [57]

    Chinmay Kulkarni, Stefania Druga, Minsuk Chang, Alex Fiannaca, Carrie Cai, and Michael Terry. 2023. A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures: Prompts as AI Design Material. arXiv:2303.12647 [cs.HC]

    work page arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    Harsh Kumar, Jonathan Vincentius, Ewan Jordan, and Ashton Anderson. 2025. Human Creativity in the Age of LLMs: Randomized Experiments on Divergent and Convergent Thinking. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 23, 18 pages. https://doi.org/1...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714198 2025

  58. [59]

    Tomas Lawton, Kazjon Grace, and Francisco J Ibarrola. 2023. When is a Tool a Tool? User Perceptions of System Agency in Human–AI Co-Creative Drawing. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1978–1996. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3595977

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3595977 2023

  59. [60]

    Hao-Ping (Hank) Lee, Advait Sarkar, Lev Tankelevitch, Ian Drosos, Sean Rintel, Richard Banks, and Nicholas Wilson. 2025. The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CH...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713778 2025

  60. [61]

    Jie Li, Hancheng Cao, Laura Lin, Youyang Hou, Ruihao Zhu, and Abdallah El Ali. 2024. User Experience Design Professionals’ Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). ACM, Article 381, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577923.3610214

    work page doi:10.1145/3577923.3610214 2024

  61. [62]

    Liang, Chenyang Yang, and Brad A

    Jenny T. Liang, Chenyang Yang, and Brad A. Myers. 2024. A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and Challenges. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering(Lisbon, Portugal)(ICSE ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 52, 13 pages. https://doi.org/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597503.3608128 2024

  62. [63]

    Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Mihai Codreanu, Jiayu Wang, Hancheng Cao, and James Zou. 2025. The Widespread Adoption of Large Language Model-Assisted Writing Across Society.arXiv preprintarXiv:2502.09747 (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.09747 arXiv:2502.09747 [cs.CL]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.09747 2025

  63. [64]

    Manning, and James Zou

    Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu, Haley Lepp, Wenlong Ji, Xuandong Zhao, Hancheng Cao, Sheng Liu, Siyu He, Zhi Huang, Diyi Yang, Christopher Potts, Christopher D. Manning, and James Zou. 2025. Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.Nature Human BehaviourDOI in 2025 (published 04 August 2025), — (2025), —. https://doi.org/10.10...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8 2025

  64. [65]

    Yuyu Lin, Jiahao Guo, Yang Chen, Cheng Yao, and Fangtian Ying. 2020. It Is Your Turn: Collaborative Ideation with a Co-Creative Robot through Sketch. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). ACM, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831. 3376258

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831 2020

  65. [66]

    Zhiyu Lin, Upol Ehsan, Rohan Agarwal, Samihan Dani, Vidushi Vashishth, and Mark Riedl. 2023. Beyond Prompts: Exploring the Design Space of Mixed-Initiative Co-Creativity Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07465(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [67]

    What It Wants Me To Say

    Michael X. Liu, Advait Sarkar, Carina Negreanu, Ben Zorn, Jack Williams, Neil Toronto, and Andrew D. Gordon. 2023. "What It Wants Me To Say": Bridging the Abstraction Gap Between End-User Programmers and Code-Generating Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). ACM, 669:1–669:15. https...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580817 2023

  67. [68]

    Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 2020

  68. [69]

    Robyn Longhurst. 2003. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups.Key methods in geography3, 2 (2003), 143–156

    work page 2003

  69. [70]

    Yuwen Lu, Alan Leung, Amanda Swearngin, Jeffrey Nichols, and Titus Barik. 2025. Misty: UI Prototyping Through Interactive Conceptual Blending. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1108, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713924

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713924 2025

  70. [71]

    Yuwen Lu, Ziang Tong, Qinyi Zhao, Yewon Oh, Bryan Wang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2024. Flowy: Supporting UX Design Decisions Through AI-Driven Pattern Annotation in Multi-Screen User Flows. arXiv:2406.16177 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16177

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [72]

    Martelaro, C

    N. Martelaro, C. Stark, X. Chen, and J. Heer. 2022. The Components of Trust for Collaborating with AI Colleagues. InCompanion Publication of the 2022 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’22 Companion). ACM, 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3500868.3559450

    work page arXiv 2022

  72. [73]

    Andreas Matthias. 2004. The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata.Ethics and Inf. Technol.6, 3 (Sept. 2004), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-004-3422-1 2004

  73. [74]

    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and Inter-rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: Norms and Guidelines for CSCW and HCI Practice.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3 (11 2019), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359174

    work page doi:10.1145/3359174 2019

  74. [75]

    Christian Meske, Tobias Hermanns, Esther von der Weiden, Kai-Uwe Loser, and Thorsten Berger. 2025. Vibe Coding as a Reconfiguration of Intent Mediation in Software Development: Definition, Implications, and Research Agenda. arXiv:2507.21928 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21928

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Hadeel Naeem and Julian Hauser. 2024. Should We Discourage AI Extension? Epistemic Responsibility and AI.Philosophy & Technology37 (07 2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00774-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s13347-024-00774-4 2024

  76. [77]

    Bin Ning, Fang Liu, and Zhixiong Liu. 2023. Creativity Support in AI Co-creative Tools: Current Research, Challenges and Opportunities. In2023 26th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD). 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD57460.2023.10152832

    work page doi:10.1109/cscwd57460.2023.10152832 2023

  77. [78]

    Nowell, Jill M

    Lorelli S. Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthi- ness Criteria.International Journal of Qualitative Methods16, 1 (2017), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

    work page doi:10.1177/1609406917733847 2017

  78. [79]

    Shakked Noy and Whitney Zhang. 2023. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence.A vailable at SSRN 4375283(2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [80]

    Olson, Johnny Nahas, Denis Chmoulevitch, Simon J

    Jay A. Olson, Johnny Nahas, Denis Chmoulevitch, Simon J. Cropper, and Margaret E. Webb. 2021. Naming unrelated words predicts creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118, 25 (2021), e2022340118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022340118

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2022340118 2021

  80. [81]

    Alexandra Olteanu, Michael Ekstrand, Carlos Castillo, and Jina Suh. 2023. Responsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Too. arXiv:2311.11776 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11776

    work page arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.