Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are reshaping software engineering work, increasingly acting as cognitive partners rather than purely instrumental aids. Most AI tooling remains optimized for individual use, yet software development is inherently collaborative and creative, raising open questions about how AI affects team-based work. This paper examines how software engineering professionals perceive and integrate AI tools focusing on creativity and collaboration within teams. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 software professionals from four companies, each representing a distinct team. Our analysis identifies three central themes - AI Use, Consequences of AI, and Collaboration and Team Dynamics, alongside Emotions as a cross-cutting dimension. Key findings include: AI broadens developers'creative repertoires but may narrow independent ideation; developers increasingly consult AI instead of colleagues, weakening peer learning and mentoring; and teams are developing emerging triadic collaboration patterns in which developers, colleagues, and AI reason together.
Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro, K. Gama, Victoria Jackson· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Objective: to investigate how the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools affects the early stages of a career in software development, from the perspective of the newcomers themselves. Method: thirteen interns and junior developers were interviewed individually, by videoconference. Interviews were analyzed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis, with inductive coding and a semantic approach. Results: sixteen themes emerged, organized around a central concept: verification-conditioned use. Across the study's four research questions (usage patterns, learning, autonomy, and market entry), the criterion that most often decides between AI and manual work is not deadline or task complexity, but the ability to check the result. Two themes expose tensions in newcomers'self-perception: the autonomy paradox (feeling more capable yet less in ownership of the result) and the first-person denial of dependence. Together, these findings point to a theoretical contribution, the formative paradox: the shallow learning that AI induces makes it harder to build the very critical-judgment competence that, according to participants, the market has begun to demand. Conclusion: what makes AI use sustainable, from participants'own point of view, is not the tool itself but the individual practice of reviewing before accepting, refusing to use AI without understanding it, asking the tool for explanations, and keeping deliberate practice outside of AI-assisted work.
Pedro Henrique Andriotte, Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
