AI Policies: Help or Hindrance? A Software Developer's Perspective

How software developers interact with Artificial Intelligence (AI)-powered tools, including Large Language Models (LLMs), plays a vital role in how these AI-powered tools impact them. While overreliance on AI may lead to long-term negative consequences (e.g., atrophy of critical thinking skills); underreliance might deprive software developers of potential gains in productivity and quality. Based on twenty-two interviews with software developers on using LLMs for software development, we propose a preliminary reliance-control framework where the level of control can be used as a way to identify AI overreliance and underreliance. We also use it to recommend future research to further explore the different control levels supported by the current and emergent LLM-driven tools. Our paper contributes to the emerging discourse on AI overreliance and provides an understanding of the appropriate degree of reliance as essential to developers making the most of these powerful technologies. Our findings can help practitioners, educators, and policymakers promote responsible and effective use of AI tools.

Large language models (LLMs) have become an essential tool for assisting developers, yet we still lack knowledge on ways to effectively support their interactions during development activities. That is, the quality of interactions with a chat-based LLM still strongly depends on how developers phrase prompts and which information they include. Our goal is to evaluate whether interventions into these interactions with LLMs have an effect on software developers---be it harmful or beneficial. To this end, we conducted a four-month longitudinal study with third-semester computer science students working on a full-stack Web development project using chat-based LLMs under three conditions: (1) a context-aware group received intent-based conversation augmentation, (2) a proactive group received follow-up suggestions and tailored advice, and (3) a control group without intervention. Our augmentations are minimal: (i) to reduce confounding factors and (ii) to isolate treatment effects. Analyzing interaction logs and user surveys revealed no major differences in interaction patterns, indicating no detectable harmful effects in the measured outcomes when intervening in interactions. Moreover, we observed trends of increased satisfaction with the proactive treatment. The results indicate that even with minimal interventions, dynamic guidance mechanisms for developer-LLM interactions show observable effects, such that more severe augmentations may have the potential to substantially improve developer satisfaction.

AI is changing how software engineers work, but it often comes with hidden burdens and costs. In this paper, we characterize two such often-overlooked burdens: (1) the constant need for human oversight and inspection of AI-generated artifacts; and (2) the growing cognitive overload on software engineers from receiving large amounts of suggestions from AI tools. The need for human oversight is not optional-engineers must review, validate, and sometimes rework what AI produces. At the same time, the flood of AI suggestions, prompts, and possible solutions can leave developers mentally stretched. By blending evidence from recent opinions from practitioners, we highlight these often-overlooked challenges and open a conversation about how teams can handle them in day-to-day AI-assisted software engineering.