Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This qualitative study explores how generative AI tools influence the early career experiences of junior software developers, based on interviews with thirteen interns and junior developers. The analysis reveals that the primary factor guiding the choice between AI and manual work is the ability to verify results, rather than deadlines or task complexity. Key findings highlight the "autonomy paradox," where developers feel more capable yet less ownership over their work, and the "formative paradox," indicating that reliance on AI may hinder the development of critical judgment skills essential for market demands.
The reliance on generative AI among junior developers may paradoxically undermine their critical judgment skills, raising questions about long-term competency in the field.
Objective: to investigate how the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools affects the early stages of a career in software development, from the perspective of the newcomers themselves. Method: thirteen interns and junior developers were interviewed individually, by videoconference. Interviews were analyzed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, with inductive coding and a semantic approach. Results: sixteen themes emerged, organized around a central concept: verification-conditioned use. Across the study's four research questions (usage patterns, learning, autonomy, and market entry), the criterion that most often decides between AI and manual work is not deadline or task complexity, but the ability to check the result. Two themes expose tensions in newcomers'self-perception: the autonomy paradox (feeling more capable yet less in ownership of the result) and the first-person denial of dependence. Together, these findings point to a theoretical contribution, the formative paradox: the shallow learning that AI induces makes it harder to build the very critical-judgment competence that, according to participants, the market has begun to demand. Conclusion: what makes AI use sustainable, from participants'own point of view, is not the tool itself but the individual practice of reviewing before accepting, refusing to use AI without understanding it, asking the tool for explanations, and keeping deliberate practice outside of AI-assisted work.