Recent researchers have explored code generation Nowadays, LLMs have been successfully used to task by using LLMs; however, most studies (Li support developers' daily development, such as et al., 2023b, 2022a; Ahmad et al., 2021; Hu et al., code generation, test generation, etc. However, 2021) focus on generating "correct" code. There existing Code LLMs are usually general models is limited research investigating how to generate trained with large programming corpus (Zheng "personalized" code, especially for multi-user personalization, et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2022), therefore the generated with no research conducted yet. Automatically code is difficult to adapt to personalized and/or generating code according to developers' customized requests. Consider the following practical preferences or projects' consistency is a challenging scenarios: Alice is a software developer. To task: (i) Considering different programmers improve programmers' daily efficiency, her company have their own coding styles, it is too expensive provided the base LLMs that can be used for to fine-tune an LLM for each user (Guo et al., code generation.

This paper systematically investigates the generation of code explanations by Large Language Models (LLMs) for code examples commonly encountered in introductory programming courses. Our findings reveal significant variations in the nature of code explanations produced by LLMs, influenced by factors such as the wording of the prompt, the specific code examples under consideration, the programming language involved, the temperature parameter, and the version of the LLM. However, a consistent pattern emerges for Java and Python, where explanations exhibit a Flesch-Kincaid readability level of approximately 7-8 grade and a consistent lexical density, indicating the proportion of meaningful words relative to the total explanation size. Additionally, the generated explanations consistently achieve high scores for correctness, but lower scores on three other metrics: completeness, conciseness, and specificity.

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies become increasingly powerful and prominent in society, their misuse is a growing concern. In educational settings, AI technologies could be used by students to cheat on assignments and exams. In this paper we explore whether transformers can be used to solve introductory level programming assignments while bypassing commonly used AI tools to detect plagiarism. We find that a student using GPT-J [Wang and Komatsuzaki, 2021] can complete introductory level programming assignments without triggering suspicion from MOSS [Aiken, 2000], a widely used plagiarism detection tool. This holds despite the fact that GPT-J was not trained on the problems in question and is not provided with any examples to work from. We further find that the code written by GPT-J is diverse in structure, lacking any particular tells that future plagiarism detection techniques may use to try to identify algorithmically generated code. We conclude with a discussion of the ethical and educational implications of large language models and directions for future research.