Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the thresholds at which software developers accept AI autonomy in their work, revealing significant variability based on task type and individual developer characteristics. Through a mixed-methods approach involving 448 Microsoft developers, the research identifies that acceptance of AI autonomy is lowest for tasks that are identity-defining and human-facing, while higher among those with more experience and risk tolerance. The findings emphasize that developers' cognitive experiences of their work significantly influence their willingness to delegate decision-making to AI, providing critical insights for designing tools that align with human values and roles in software engineering.
Developers are more likely to trust AI with decision-making in high-demand tasks, but resist autonomy in work that defines their professional identity.
As AI takes on more software work, the line between human and AI effort is shifting. Where developers draw that line around AI autonomy bears on how we design tools and roles that preserve meaningful work. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory, work design, and automation research, we conducted a mixed-methods study of 448 professional developers at Microsoft to investigate their accepted levels of AI autonomy across software engineering work. Most developers accepted AI producing work under their oversight, although accepted autonomy varied substantively across tasks and individuals. Acceptance was lowest for identity-defining, human-facing, and design-oriented work, and higher among developers with more AI experience and risk tolerance. Task accountability was associated with lower odds of allowing AI to act on developers' behalf, whereas task identity was associated with lower odds of granting AI decision-making autonomy. Task demands had the opposite effect, increasing willingness to delegate decision-making to AI. Our findings suggest that preferences for AI autonomy reflect how developers cognitively experience their work, highlighting important considerations for designing meaningful work.
Microsoft Research