How Humans Communicate Programming Tasks in Natural Language and Implications For End-User Programming with LLMs
Madison Pickering, Helena Williams, Alison Gan, Weijia He, Hyojae Park, Francisco Piedrahita Velez, Michael L. Littman, Blase Ur
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 can convert naturallanguage descriptions of a task into computer code, making them a promising interface for end-user programming. We undertake a systematic analysis of how people with and without programming experience describe information-processing tasks (IPTs) in natural language, focusing on the characteristics of successful communication. Across two online between-subjects studies, we paired crowdworkers either with one another or with an LLM, asking senders (always humans) to communicate IPTs in natural language to their receiver (either a human or LLM). Both senders and receivers tried to answer test cases, the latter based on their sender's description. While participants with programming experience tended to communicate IPTs more successfully than non-programmers, this advantage was not overwhelming. Furthermore, a user interface that solicited example test cases from senders often, but not always, improved IPT communication. Allowing receivers to request clarification, though, was less successful at improving communication.
• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in interaction design.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 696c71a4-520d-47f5-a502-fa6799b16256Cited by top-tier papers2
- Not Everyone Wins with LLMs: Behavioral Patterns and Pedagogical Implications for AI Literacy in Programmatic Data ScienceQianou Ma, Kenneth R. Koedinger, Tongshuang WuCHI 2026 · 5 citations
- Computer Science Achievement and Writing Skills Predict Vibe Coding ProficiencySverrir Thorgeirsson, Theo B. Weidmann, Zhendong SuCHI 2026 · 4 citations
Builds on14
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Why Johnny Can't Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM PromptsJ. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y. Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, Qian YangCHI 2023 · 892 citations
- Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code ContributionsHammond Pearce, Baleegh Ahmad, Benjamin Tan, Brendan Dolan-Gavitt et al.S&P 2022 · 725 citations
- Unsupervised Translation of Programming LanguagesBaptiste Rozière, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Lowik Chanussot, Guillaume LampleNeurIPS 2020 · 606 citations
- The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AILev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott et al.CHI 2024 · 279 citations
Related papers
- CoPrompt: Supporting Prompt Sharing and Referring in Collaborative Natural Language ProgrammingLi Feng, Ryan Yen, Yuzhe You, Mingming Fan et al.CHI 2024 · 28 citations
- Do Large Language Models Pay Similar Attention Like Human Programmers When Generating Code?Bonan Kou, Shengmai Chen, Zhijie Wang, Lei Ma et al.FSE 2024 · 8 citations
- "What It Wants Me To Say": Bridging the Abstraction Gap Between End-User Programmers and Code-Generating Large Language ModelsMichael Xieyang Liu, Advait Sarkar, Carina Negreanu, Benjamin G. Zorn et al.CHI 2023 · 114 citations
- Discovering the Syntax and Strategies of Natural Language Programming with Generative Language ModelsEllen Jiang, Edwin Toh, Alejandra Molina, Kristen Olson et al.CHI 2022 · 76 citations
- Bridging the Gulf of Envisioning: Cognitive Challenges in Prompt Based Interactions with LLMsHariharan Subramonyam, Roy Pea, Christopher Lawrence Pondoc, Maneesh Agrawala et al.CHI 2024 · 137 citations
