"My productivity is boosted, but ..." Demystifying Users' Perception on AI Coding Assistants
Yunbo Lyu, Zhou Yang, Jieke Shi, Jianming Chang, Yue Liu, David Lo
Abstract
This paper aims to explore fundamental questions in the era when AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot are widely adopted: what do developers truly value and criticize in AI coding assistants, and what does this reveal about their needs and expectations in real-world software development? Unlike previous studies that conduct observational research in controlled and simulated environments, we analyze extensive, first-hand user reviews of AI coding assistants, which capture developers’ authentic perspectives and experiences drawn directly from their actual day-to-day work contexts. We identify 1,085 AI coding assistants from the Visual Studio Code Marketplace. Although they only account for 1.64% of all extensions, we observe a surge in these assistants: over 90% of them are released within the past two years. We then manually analyze the user reviews sampled from 32 AI coding assistants that have sufficient installations and reviews to construct a comprehensive taxonomy of user concerns and feedback about these assistants. We manually annotate each review’s attitude when mentioning certain aspects of coding assistants, yielding nuanced insights into user satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding specific features, concerns, and overall tool performance. Built on top of the findings-including how users demand not just intelligent suggestions but also context-aware, customizable, and resource-efficient interactions—we propose five practical implications and suggestions to guide the enhancement of AI coding assistants that satisfy user needs.
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 ce7d17c2-28ec-4ca3-99ad-be892fc3f50bCited by top-tier papers2
- When AI Takes the Wheel: Security Analysis of Framework-Constrained Program GenerationYue Liu, Zhenchang Xing, Shidong Pan, Chakkrit TantithamthavornICSE 2026
- Compiling Code LLMs into Lightweight ExecutablesJieke Shi, Junda He, Zhou Yang, Chengran Yang et al.FSE 2026
Builds on18
- Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating ModelsShraddha Barke, Michael B. James, Nadia PolikarpovaOOPSLA 2023 · 408 citations
- Taxonomy of real faults in deep learning systemsNargiz Humbatova, Gunel Jahangirova, Gabriele Bavota, Vincenzo Riccio et al.ICSE 2020 · 281 citations
- Using an LLM to Help With Code UnderstandingDaye Nam, Andrew Macvean, Vincent J. Hellendoorn, Bogdan Vasilescu et al.ICSE 2024 · 264 citations
- In-context Autoencoder for Context Compression in a Large Language ModelTao Ge, Jing Hu, Lei Wang, Xun Wang et al.ICLR 2024 · 158 citations
- Natural Attack for Pre-trained Models of CodeZhou Yang, Jieke Shi, Junda He, David LoICSE 2022 · 150 citations
Related papers
- A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and ChallengesJenny T. Liang, Chenyang Yang, Brad A. MyersICSE 2024 · 126 citations
- Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer WorkflowsValerie Chen, Ameet Talwalkar, Robert Brennan, Graham NeubigCHI 2026 · 2 citations
- Validating AI-Generated Code with Live ProgrammingKasra Ferdowsi, Ruanqianqian (Lisa) Huang, Michael B. James, Nadia Polikarpova et al.CHI 2024 · 27 citations
- An Eye for AI: Eye-Tracking the Micro-Interruptions of GenAI Code SuggestionsTarek Alakmeh, Sarah D’Angelo, Thomas FritzICSE 2026 · 1 citation
- Generative AI for Pull Request Descriptions: Adoption, Impact, and Developer InterventionsTao Xiao, Hideaki Hata, Christoph Treude, Kenichi MatsumotoFSE 2024 · 13 citations
