Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models

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 2206.15000 v3 pith:FMEI6E6B submitted 2022-06-30 cs.HC cs.PL

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

Powered by recent advances in code-generating models, AI assistants like Github Copilot promise to change the face of programming forever. But what is this new face of programming? We present the first grounded theory analysis of how programmers interact with Copilot, based on observing 20 participants--with a range of prior experience using the assistant--as they solve diverse programming tasks across four languages. Our main finding is that interactions with programming assistants are bimodal: in acceleration mode, the programmer knows what to do next and uses Copilot to get there faster; in exploration mode, the programmer is unsure how to proceed and uses Copilot to explore their options. Based on our theory, we provide recommendations for improving the usability of future AI programming assistants.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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 23 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Code Shaping: Iterative Code Editing with Free-form AI-Interpreted Sketching

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Free-form sketch annotations on and around code can be interpreted by a large language model to produce iterative code edits, and a three-stage study with 18 programmers yields design guidelines for this interaction paradigm.

  2. Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities of AI-assisted Codebase Generation

    cs.SE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Developers prompting codebase-level AI assistants are often dissatisfied with generated code, citing missing functionality, poor code quality, and communication gaps, despite varied prompting strategies.

  3. Bridging LLM-Generated Code and Requirements: Reverse Generation technique and SBC Metric for Developer Insights

    cs.SE 2025-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    SBC is a hybrid metric that reverse-generates requirements from LLM-written code and scores their semantic, lexical, and completeness match to the original requirement, but its validity is not established.

  4. Adoption of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the German Software Engineering Industry: An Empirical Study

    cs.SE 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a survey of 109 German developers plus 18 interviews, GenAI productivity gains cluster among 'power users'; junior and senior developers perceive prompting differently, and limited codebase context is a major barrier.

Pith tools