Claims that generative AI will soon write all of the code have led to predictions that programming is nearing its end. In this vision paper, we argue against this assumption that broader access to code generation necessarily democratizes software development, i.e., everyone can code but we have to distinguish between access and control: by access, we mean the ability of more people, including non-experts and less-experienced developers, to generate code-like artifacts with AI; by control, we mean the capacity to inspect, evaluate, integrate, maintain, and govern those artifacts as dependable software. While AI may broaden access to code production, control may become more concentrated among those who own or understand the code, software practices, infrastructure, evaluation practices, and deployment pipelines. Grounded in an expert panel, our vision paper argues that AI does not eliminate software engineering expertise but shifts where that expertise becomes most critical. The locus of software engineering expertise is shifting toward intent specification: orchestrating and governing AI behavior, evaluating software behavior, and integrating software systems. We conclude this paper by identifying research opportunities for education, tools, and policy that can help the software engineering community respond to the AI era with greater agency, accountability, and adaptability.
Zixuan Feng, Ítalo Santos, Kostadin Damevski et al.· 0 citations
Context: The growing adoption of AI-assisted development tools is changing how software teams collaborate, share knowledge, and coordinate, yet its consequences for team social dynamics remain largely unexplored. Gap: It is unclear whether AI adoption is associated with an increase or reduction in community smells,socio-technical anti-patterns reflecting coordination and communication breakdowns,and through which mechanisms. Method: Grounded in Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) theory, we validate instruments for HumanAI and HumanHuman interaction along two TMS dimensions, Specialization and Coordination, and test five PLS-SEM models on survey data from 152 software professionals using AI tools. Community smell constructs were derived from the literature and validated through expert surveys and factor analysis. Results: AI adoption relates to community smells not in a single way, but through mechanisms depending on the work. In specialization work, AI is associated with higher knowledge-sharing peer interaction, which is in turn associated with fewer smells. In coordination work, AI is directly associated with higher communication quality, complementing rather than replacing human interaction. Contributions: We provide an empirically validated, TMS-grounded model showing that the AIcommunity-smell relationship is contingent on the type of collaboration, with a reusable instrument and evidence-based implications for research and practice.
Giusy Annunziata, Rudrajit Choudhuri, Anita Sarma et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
