Search for: All records

While AI programming tools hold the promise of increasing programmers’ capabilities and productivity to a remarkable degree, they often exclude users from essential decision making processes, causing many to effectively “turn off their brains” and over-rely on solutions provided by these systems. These behaviors can have severe consequences in critical domains, like software security. We propose Human-in-the-Loop Decoding, a novel interaction technique that allows users to observe and directly influence LLM decisions during code generation, in order to align the model’s output with their personal requirements. We implement this technique in HILDE, a code completion assistant that highlights critical decisions made by the LLM and provides local alternatives for the user to explore. In a within-subjects study (N=18) on security-related tasks, we found that HILDE led participants to generate significantly fewer vulnerabilities and better align code generation with their goals compared to a traditional code completion assistant. 

Although birthed in the era of teletypes, the command line shell survived the graphical interface revolution of the 1980’s and lives on in modern desktop operating systems. The command line provides access to powerful functionality not otherwise exposed on the computer, but requires users to recall textual syntax and carefully scour documentation. In contrast, graphical interfaces let users organically discover and invoke possible actions through widgets and menus. To better expose the power of the command line, we demonstrate a mechanism for automatically creating graphical interfaces for command line tools by translating their documentation (in the form of man pages) into interface specifications via AI. Using these specifications, our user-facing system, called GUIDE, presents the command options to the user graphically. We evaluate the generated interfaces on a corpus of commands to show to what degree GUIDE offers thorough graphical interfaces for users’ real-world command line tasks. 

While AI programming tools hold the promise of increasing programmers’ capabilities and productivity to a remarkable degree, they often exclude users from essential decision making processes, causing many to effectively “turn off their brains” and over-rely on solutions provided by these systems. These behaviors can have severe consequences in critical domains, like software security. We propose Human-in-the-Loop Decoding, a novel interaction technique that allows users to observe and directly influence LLM decisions during code generation, in order to align the model’s output with their personal requirements. We implement this technique in HILDE, a code completion assistant that highlights critical decisions made by the LLM and provides local alternatives for the user to explore. In a within-subjects study (N=18) on security-related tasks, we found that HILDE led participants to generate significantly fewer vulnerabilities and better align code generation with their goals compared to a traditional code completion assistant. 

Computational notebooks are intended to prioritize the needs of scientists, but little is known about how scientists interact with notebooks, what requirements drive scientists’ software development processes, or what tactics scientists use to meet their requirements. We conducted an observational study of 20 scientists using Jupyter notebooks for their day-to-day tasks, finding that scientists prioritize different quality attributes depending on their goals. A qualitative analysis of their usage shows (1) a collection of goals scientists pursue with Jupyter notebooks, (2) a set of quality attributes that scientists value when they write software, and (3) tactics that scientists leverage to promote quality. In addition, we identify ways scientists incorporated AI tools into their notebook work. From our observations, we derive design recommendations for improving computational notebooks and future programming systems for scientists. Key opportunities pertain to helping scientists create and manage state, dependencies, and abstractions in their software, enabling more effective reuse of clearly-defined components. 

Powered by recent advances in code-generating models, AI assistants like Github Copilot promise to change the face of programming forever. But whatisthis new face of programming? We present the first grounded theory analysis of how programmers interact with Copilot, based on observing 20 participants—with a range of prior experience using the assistant—as they solve diverse programming tasks across four languages. Our main finding is that interactions with programming assistants arebimodal: inacceleration mode, the programmer knows what to do next and uses Copilot to get there faster; inexploration mode, the programmer is unsure how to proceed and uses Copilot to explore their options. Based on our theory, we provide recommendations for improving the usability of future AI programming assistants. 

One vision for program synthesis, and specifically for programming by example (PBE), is an interactive programmer's assistant, integrated into the development environment. To make program synthesis practical for interactive use, prior work on Small-Step Live PBE has proposed to limit the scope of synthesis to small code snippets, and enable the users to provide local specifications for those snippets. This paradigm, however, does not work well in the presence of loops. We present LooPy, a synthesizer integrated into a live programming environment, which extends Small-Step Live PBE to work inside loops and scales it up to synthesize larger code snippets, while remaining fast enough for interactive use. To allow users to effectively provide examples at various loop iterations, even when the loop body is incomplete, LooPy makes use oflive execution, a technique that leverages the programmer as an oracle to step over incomplete parts of the loop. To enable synthesis of loop bodies at interactive speeds, LooPy introducesIntermediate State Graph, a new data structure, which compactly represents a large space of code snippets composed of multiple assignment statements and conditionals. We evaluate LooPy empirically using benchmarks from competitive programming and previous synthesizers, and show that it can solve a wide variety of synthesis tasks at interactive speeds. We also perform a small qualitative user study which shows that LooPy'sblock-levelspecifications are easy for programmers to provide.