Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models, have introduced new possibilities for software development practices. In our paper we investigate the emerging Vibe Coding (VC) paradigm that emphasizes intuitive, affect-driven, and improvisational interactions between developers and AI systems. Building upon the discourse of End-User Development (EUD), we explore how VC diverges from conventional programming approaches such as those supported by tools like GitHub Copilot. Through five semi-structured interview sessions with ten experienced software practitioners, we identify five thematic dimensions: creativity, sustainability, the future of programming, collaboration, and criticism. Our analysis conceptualizes VC within the metaphor of co-drifting, contrasting it with the prevalent co-piloting perspective of AI-assisted development. We argue that VC reconfigures the developers role, blurring boundaries between professional and non-developers. While VC enables novel forms of expression and rapid prototyping, it also introduces challenges regarding reproducibility, scalability, and inclusivity. We propose that VC represents a meaningful shift in programming culture, warranting further investigation within human-computer interaction (HCI) and software engineering research.

The rapid integration of AI-powered coding assistants into developer workflows has raised significant privacy and trust concerns. As developers entrust proprietary code to services like OpenAI's GPT, Google's Gemini, and GitHub Copilot, the unclear data handling practices of these tools create security and compliance risks. This paper addresses this challenge by introducing and applying a novel, expert-validated privacy scorecard. The methodology involves a detailed analysis of four document types; from legal policies to external audits; to score five leading assistants against 14 weighted criteria. A legal expert and a data protection officer refined these criteria and their weighting. The results reveal a distinct hierarchy of privacy protections, with a 20-point gap between the highest- and lowest-ranked tools. The analysis uncovers common industry weaknesses, including the pervasive use of opt-out consent for model training and a near-universal failure to filter secrets from user prompts proactively. The resulting scorecard provides actionable guidance for developers and organizations, enabling evidence-based tool selection. This work establishes a new benchmark for transparency and advocates for a shift towards more user-centric privacy standards in the AI industry.

As software development practices increasingly adopt AI-powered tools, ensuring that such tools can support secure coding has become critical. This study evaluates the effectiveness of GitHub Copilot's recently introduced code review feature in detecting security vulnerabilities. Using a curated set of labeled vulnerable code samples drawn from diverse open-source projects spanning multiple programming languages and application domains, we systematically assessed Copilot's ability to identify and provide feedback on common security flaws. Contrary to expectations, our results reveal that Copilot's code review frequently fails to detect critical vulnerabilities such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), and insecure deserialization. Instead, its feedback primarily addresses low-severity issues, such as coding style and typographical errors. These findings expose a significant gap between the perceived capabilities of AI-assisted code review and its actual effectiveness in supporting secure development practices. Our results highlight the continued necessity of dedicated security tools and manual code audits to ensure robust software security.

Studies on the use o f AI tools in CS course s focus on prescriptive uses of AI tools that preemptively assign a use case to the tool. To our knowledge, this is the first user study that surveys CS students on how they use AI tools for their coding tasks by personal choice. We surveyed 26 CS students and practitioners with various programming experiences using AI tools for coding tasks (i.e., writ e, debug, etc.). When asked about the most common resources they have used to write a 300 - line program from scratch, blog entries ( e.g., Stack Exchange, etc.) were their top choice, followed by AI coding assistants (e.g., GitHub Copilot, etc.). When asked about resources to debug code, AI chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT, etc.) were the most common choice, followed by blog entries. AI coding assistants are used more for writing code, while AI chatbots are used for debugging tasks. Respondents with all programming experience prefer online resources for coding tasks - whether AI - powered or not - rather than direct human help from peers an d instructors.

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become increasingly embedded in software development workflows, questions persist about their true impact on developer productivity and experience. This paper presents findings from a mixed-methods study examining how developers perceive AI's influence across the dimensions of the SPACE framework: Satisfaction, Performance, Activity, Collaboration and Efficiency. Drawing on survey responses from over 500 developers and qualitative insights from interviews and observational studies, we find that AI is broadly adopted and widely seen as enhancing productivity, particularly for routine tasks. However, the benefits vary, depending on task complexity, individual usage patterns, and team-level adoption. Developers report increased efficiency and satisfaction, with less evidence of impact on collaboration. Organizational support and peer learning play key roles in maximizing AI's value. These findings suggest that AI is augmenting developers rather than replacing them, and that effective integration depends as much on team culture and support structures as on the tools themselves. We conclude with practical recommendations for teams, organizations and researchers seeking to harness AI's potential in software engineering.

The future of software engineering--SE 3.0--is unfolding with the rise of AI teammates: autonomous, goal-driven systems collaborating with human developers. Among these, autonomous coding agents are especially transformative, now actively initiating, reviewing, and evolving code at scale. This paper introduces AIDev, the first large-scale dataset capturing how such agents operate in the wild. Spanning over 456,000 pull requests by five leading agents--OpenAI Codex, Devin, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, and Claude Code--across 61,000 repositories and 47,000 developers, AIDev provides an unprecedented empirical foundation for studying autonomous teammates in software development. Unlike prior work that has largely theorized the rise of AI-native software engineering, AIDev offers structured, open data to support research in benchmarking, agent readiness, optimization, collaboration modeling, and AI governance. The dataset includes rich metadata on PRs, authorship, review timelines, code changes, and integration outcomes--enabling exploration beyond synthetic benchmarks like SWE-bench. For instance, although agents often outperform humans in speed, their PRs are accepted less frequently, revealing a trust and utility gap. Furthermore, while agents accelerate code submission--one developer submitted as many PRs in three days as they had in three years--these are structurally simpler (via code complexity metrics). We envision AIDev as a living resource: extensible, analyzable, and ready for the SE and AI communities. Grounding SE 3.0 in real-world evidence, AIDev enables a new generation of research into AI-native workflows and supports building the next wave of symbiotic human-AI collaboration. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/SAILResearch/AI_Teammates_in_SE3. > AI Agent, Agentic AI, Coding Agent, Agentic Coding, Software Engineering Agent

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented capability in code generation. However, LLM-generated code is still plagued with a wide range of functional errors, especially for complex programming tasks that LLMs have not seen before. Recent studies have shown that developers often struggle with inspecting and fixing incorrect code generated by LLMs, diminishing their productivity and trust in LLM-based code generation. Inspired by the mutual grounding theory in communication, we propose an interactive approach that leverages code comments as a medium for developers and LLMs to establish a shared understanding. Our approach facilitates iterative grounding by interleaving code generation, inline comment generation, and contextualized user feedback through editable comments to align generated code with developer intent. We evaluated our approach on two popular benchmarks and demonstrated that our approach significantly improved multiple state-of-the-art LLMs, e.g., 17.1% pass@1 improvement for code-davinci-002 on HumanEval. Furthermore, we conducted a user study with 12 participants in comparison to two baselines: (1) interacting with GitHub Copilot, and (2) interacting with a multi-step code generation paradigm called Multi-Turn Program Synthesis. Participants completed the given programming tasks 16.7% faster and with 10.5% improvement in task success rate when using our approach. Both results show that interactively refining code comments enables the collaborative establishment of mutual grounding, leading to more accurate code generation and higher developer confidence.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT have become popular among programming students. Students use LLMs to assist them in programming courses, including generating source code. Previous work has evaluated the ability of LLMs in solving introductory-course programming assignments. The results have shown that LLMs are highly effective in generating code for introductory Computer Science (CS) courses. However, there is a gap in research on evaluating LLMs' ability to generate code that solves advanced programming assignments. In this work, we evaluate the ability of four LLM tools to solve programming assignments from advanced CS courses in three popular programming languages, Java, Python, and C. We manually select 12 problems, three problems from introductory courses as the baseline and nine programming assignments from second- and third-year CS courses. To evaluate the LLM-generated code, we generate a test suite of 1000 test cases per problem and analyze the program output. Our evaluation shows that although LLMs are highly effective in generating source code for introductory programming courses, solving advanced programming assignments is more challenging. Nonetheless, in many cases, LLMs identify the base problem and provide partial solutions that may be useful to CS students. Furthermore, our results may provide useful guidance for teachers of advanced programming courses on how to design programming assignments.

Due to increased computing use, data centers consume and emit a lot of energy and carbon. These contributions are expected to rise as big data analytics, digitization, and large AI models grow and become major components of daily working routines. To reduce the environmental impact of software development, green (sustainable) coding and claims that AI models can improve energy efficiency have grown in popularity. Furthermore, in the automotive industry, where software increasingly governs vehicle performance, safety, and user experience, the principles of green coding and AI-driven efficiency could significantly contribute to reducing the sector's environmental footprint. We present an overview of green coding and metrics to measure AI model sustainability awareness. This study introduces LLM as a service and uses a generative commercial AI language model, GitHub Copilot, to auto-generate code. Using sustainability metrics to quantify these AI models' sustainability awareness, we define the code's embodied and operational carbon.

This paper explores the integration of AI tools, such as ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, in the Software Architecture for Embedded Systems course. AI-supported workflows enabled students to rapidly prototype complex projects, emphasizing real-world applications like SLAM robotics. Results demon-started enhanced problem-solving, faster development, and more sophisticated outcomes, with AI augmenting but not replacing human decision-making.