Developer Task Delegation to LLMs and the Trust Factor: A Mixed Methods Study

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to disrupt knowledge work, with the emergence of delegated work as a new interaction paradigm (e.g., vibe coding). Delegation requires trust - the expectation that the LLM will faithfully execute the task without introducing errors into documents. We introduce DELEGATE-52 to study the readiness of AI systems in delegated workflows. DELEGATE-52 simulates long delegated workflows that require in-depth document editing across 52 professional domains, such as coding, crystallography, and music notation. Our large-scale experiment with 19 LLMs reveals that current models degrade documents during delegation: even frontier models (Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude 4.6 Opus, GPT 5.4) corrupt an average of 25% of document content by the end of long workflows, with other models failing more severely. Additional experiments reveal that agentic tool use does not improve performance on DELEGATE-52, and that degradation severity is exacerbated by document size, length of interaction, or presence of distractor files. Our analysis shows that current LLMs are unreliable delegates: they introduce sparse but severe errors that silently corrupt documents, compounding over long interaction.

With large language models (LLMs) becoming increasingly prevalent in daily life, so too has the tendency to attribute to them human-like minds and emotions, or anthropomorphize them. Here, we investigate dimensions people use to anthropomorphize and attribute trust toward LLMs across more than 2,000 human-LLM interactions. Participants (N=115) engaged with LLM chatbots systematically varied in warmth (friendliness), competence (capability, coherence), and empathy (cognitive and affective). Warmth and cognitive empathy significantly predicted perceptions on all outcomes (perceived anthropomorphism, trust, similarity, relational closeness, frustration, usefulness), while competence predicted all outcomes except for anthropomorphism. Affective empathy primarily predicted perceived relational measures, but did not predict the epistemic outcomes. Topic sub-analyses showed that more subjective, personally relevant topics (e.g., relationship advice) amplified these effects, producing greater human-likeness and relational connection with the LLM than did objective topics. Together, these findings reveal that warmth, competence, and empathy are key dimensions through which people attribute relational and epistemic perceptions to artificial agents.