Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study employs a mixed-methods approach to explore how professional developers interact with Generative AI (GenAI) tools in their work environments, focusing on both productivity and well-being. Findings reveal that while developers generally appreciate GenAI for monotonous tasks, the combination of in-code suggestions and chat-based prompts can lead to diminished efficiency. A proposed rule-of-thumb for selecting interaction types based on task characteristics highlights the nuanced relationship between cognitive load and productivity in development-heavy tasks.
Developers find that mixing interaction types with GenAI can actually hinder productivity, challenging assumptions about tool integration in coding workflows.
With the growing adoption of AI-powered coding assistants, organizations and developers are increasingly seeking to optimize their interaction with these tools. Prior research has largely focused on output quality and productivity gains, with limited attention paid to developers'well-being and interaction experiences. This paper presents a developer-centered empirical mixed-methods study to investigate how professional developers engage with Generative AI (GenAI) in their natural work environment. Controlled data collection sessions are combined with natural work periods. Results show that developers are generally satisfied with GenAI, particularly for monotonous, repetitive, and structured tasks, and report perceived efficiency and productivity gains. Copilot interaction type preferences differ by task type and complexity: While both in-code suggestions and chat-based prompting independently improve task efficiency and reduce perceived workload, combining these interaction types within a single task diminishes benefits. We propose a rule-of-thumb for selecting an interaction type based on task characteristics. During development-heavy tasks, results indicate that perceived cognitive load arises from AI interaction, while perceived productivity depends on AI output quality. Participation in this study positively influenced developers'awareness and intentional use of GenAI tools. These findings demonstrate the value of real-world, mixed-methods study designs to understand GenAI tools and developers'experiences with them.
