To LLM, or Not to LLM: How Designers and Developers Navigate LLMs as Tools or Teammates

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly developed for use in complex professional domains, yet little is known about how teams design and evaluate these systems in practice. This paper examines the challenges and trade-offs in LLM development through a 12-week ethnographic study of a team building a pedagogical chatbot. The researcher observed design and evaluation activities and conducted interviews with both developers and domain experts. Analysis revealed four key practices: creating workarounds for data collection, turning to augmentation when expert input was limited, co-developing evaluation criteria with experts, and adopting hybrid expert-developer-LLM evaluation strategies. These practices show how teams made strategic decisions under constraints and demonstrate the central role of domain expertise in shaping the system. Challenges included expert motivation and trust, difficulties structuring participatory design, and questions around ownership and integration of expert knowledge. We propose design opportunities for future LLM development workflows that emphasize AI literacy, transparent consent, and frameworks recognizing evolving expert roles.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as facilitators of group discussion and collaborative work, but the behavioral differences between LLM-generated and human facilitation remain insufficiently characterized. We compare human Project Manager facilitation turns from scenario-based collaborative design meetings with Llama 3.1 8B Instruct responses across 199 paired contexts from the AMI Meeting Corpus. The analysis covers five confirmatory dimensions: contextual semantic distance, a lexical elaboration proxy, empathyand-hedge lexical density, topic divergence, and phase-vocabulary alignment. An exploratory directiveness measure failed domain validation and is not interpreted. The sampled human Project Manager turns were higher on contextual semantic distance (r = 0.644) and on empathyand-hedge lexical density (r = 0.203). The second contrast is carried mainly by hedge terms, so we read it as lexical hedging rather than psychological empathy. Llama-generated facilitation was higher on topic divergence (r = 0.703), the lexical elaboration proxy (r = 0.288; lengthconfounded), and instruction-conditioned phase-vocabulary alignment (r = 0.382). A secondary no-phase check left the Llama-higher phase contrast in place. The system prompt still requested a facilitation move, so that check is not evidence of spontaneous phase awareness. These differences should not be interpreted as a ranking of facilitation quality. The resulting behavioral profile provides a reference point for later comparisons of LLM facilitators, human facilitators, prompts, models, and collaborative settings.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential across a wide range of software engineering tasks, including software design, an area traditionally regarded as highly dependent on human expertise and judgment. However, there has been little research focusing on how LLMs are used in software design, nor on the associated benefits and drawbacks. This paper aims to bridge this gap by empirically investigating how software developers utilize LLMs in the context of software design. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a mining study of 291 developer-ChatGPT conversations shared on GitHub with a survey of 65 software practitioners. Our findings reveal nine distinct categories of design tasks supported by ChatGPT, including architecture design, data model design, and the use of design patterns. We further characterize developer-ChatGPT interactions, showing that developers primarily use ChatGPT for knowledge acquisition and design-related code generation, with most tasks situated at the detailed design level. The study identifies seven key benefits of utilizing LLMs in software design as perceived by developers, such as better technology selection and the early detection of design flaws. We also uncover six limitations, including the generation of overly lengthy and difficult-to-read outputs, the creation of inexecutable or incorrect code, and a heavy reliance on context that can lead to hallucinated results. These findings provide an evidence-based characterization of current LLM use in software design from both open-source and practitioner perspectives, highlighting a tension between perceived benefits and limitations, which lays a foundation for future research and the development of effective techniques and tools to integrate LLMs into software design practices.