AI programming assistants have demonstrated a tendency to generate code containing basic security vulnerabilities. While developers are ultimately responsible for validating and reviewing such outputs, improving the inherent quality of these generated code snippets remains essential. A key contributing factor to insecure outputs is the presence of vulnerabilities in the training datasets used to build large language models (LLMs). To address this issue, we propose curating training data to include only code that is free from detectable vulnerabilities. In this study, we constructed a secure dataset by filtering an existing Python corpus using a static analysis tool to retain only vulnerability-free functions. We then trained two transformer-based models: one on the curated dataset and one on the original, unfiltered dataset. The models were evaluated on both the correctness and security of the code they generated in response to natural language function descriptions. Our results show that the model trained on the curated dataset produced outputs with fewer security issues, while maintaining comparable functional correctness. These findings highlight the importance of secure training data in improving the reliability of AI-based programming assistants, though further enhancements to model architecture and evaluation are needed to reinforce these outcomes.

The software engineering community recently has witnessed widespread deployment of AI programming assistants, such as GitHub Copilot. However, in practice, developers do not accept AI programming assistants' initial suggestions at a high frequency. This leaves a number of open questions related to the usability of these tools. To understand developers' practices while using these tools and the important usability challenges they face, we administered a survey to a large population of developers and received responses from a diverse set of 410 developers. Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses, we found that developers are most motivated to use AI programming assistants because they help developers reduce key-strokes, finish programming tasks quickly, and recall syntax, but resonate less with using them to help brainstorm potential solutions. We also found the most important reasons why developers do not use these tools are because these tools do not output code that addresses certain functional or non-functional requirements and because developers have trouble controlling the tool to generate the desired output. Our findings have implications for both creators and users of AI programming assistants, such as designing minimal cognitive effort interactions with these tools to reduce distractions for users while they are programming.

Abstract: The software engineering community recently has witnessed widespread deployment of AI programming assistants, such as GitHub Copilot. However, in practice, developers do not accept AI programming assistants' initial suggestions at a high frequency. This leaves a number of open questions related to the usability of these tools. To understand developers' practices while using these tools and the important usability challenges they face, we administered a survey to a large population of developers and received responses from a diverse set of 410 developers. Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses, we found that developers are most motivated to use AI programming assistants because they help developers reduce key-strokes, finish programming tasks quickly, and recall syntax, but resonate less with using them to help brainstorm potential solutions.

A neural network that automatically generates source code to help human programmers complete projects has been found to include bugs or security flaws in up to 40 per cent of the code it outputs. The neural network is the basis for an AI programming feature called Copilot that is available through Microsoft subsidiary GitHub, which is used by millions of people to share source code and organise software projects.