-
Vibe coding: programming through conversation with artificial intelligence
Authors:
Advait Sarkar,
Ian Drosos
Abstract:
We examine "vibe coding": an emergent programming paradigm where developers primarily write code by interacting with code-generating large language models rather than writing code directly. We analysed a curated set of videos depicting extended vibe coding sessions with rich think-aloud reflections. Using framework analysis, we investigated programmers' goals, workflows, prompting techniques, debu…
▽ More
We examine "vibe coding": an emergent programming paradigm where developers primarily write code by interacting with code-generating large language models rather than writing code directly. We analysed a curated set of videos depicting extended vibe coding sessions with rich think-aloud reflections. Using framework analysis, we investigated programmers' goals, workflows, prompting techniques, debugging approaches, and challenges encountered. We find that vibe coding follows iterative goal satisfaction cycles where developers alternate between prompting AI, evaluating generated code through rapid scanning and application testing, and manual editing. Prompting strategies blend vague, high-level directives with detailed technical specifications. Debugging remains a hybrid process combining AI assistance with manual practices. Critically, vibe coding does not eliminate the need for programming expertise but rather redistributes it toward context management, rapid code evaluation, and decisions about when to transition between AI-driven and manual manipulation of code. Trust in AI tools during vibe coding is dynamic and contextual, developed through iterative verification rather than blanket acceptance. Vibe coding is an evolution of AI-assisted programming that represents an early manifestation of "material disengagement", where practitioners orchestrate code production and manipulation, mediated through AI, while maintaining selective and strategic oversight.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2025;
originally announced June 2025.
-
"It makes you think": Provocations Help Restore Critical Thinking to AI-Assisted Knowledge Work
Authors:
Ian Drosos,
Advait Sarkar,
Xiaotong,
Xu,
Neil Toronto
Abstract:
Recent research suggests that the use of Generative AI tools may result in diminished critical thinking during knowledge work. We study the effect on knowledge work of provocations: brief textual prompts that offer critiques for and propose alternatives to AI suggestions. We conduct a between-subjects study (n=24) in which participants completed AI-assisted shortlisting tasks with and without prov…
▽ More
Recent research suggests that the use of Generative AI tools may result in diminished critical thinking during knowledge work. We study the effect on knowledge work of provocations: brief textual prompts that offer critiques for and propose alternatives to AI suggestions. We conduct a between-subjects study (n=24) in which participants completed AI-assisted shortlisting tasks with and without provocations. We find that provocations can induce critical and metacognitive thinking. We derive five dimensions that impact the user experience of provocations: task urgency, task importance, user expertise, provocation actionability, and user responsibility. We connect our findings to related work on design frictions, microboundaries, and distributed cognition. We draw design implications for critical thinking interventions in AI-assisted knowledge work.
△ Less
Submitted 28 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
-
When Copilot Becomes Autopilot: Generative AI's Critical Risk to Knowledge Work and a Critical Solution
Authors:
Advait Sarkar,
Xiaotong,
Xu,
Neil Toronto,
Ian Drosos,
Christian Poelitz
Abstract:
Generative AI, with its tendency to "hallucinate" incorrect results, may pose a risk to knowledge work by introducing errors. On the other hand, it may also provide unprecedented opportunities for users, particularly non-experts, to learn and apply advanced software features and greatly increase the scope and complexity of tasks they can successfully achieve.
As an example of a complex knowledge…
▽ More
Generative AI, with its tendency to "hallucinate" incorrect results, may pose a risk to knowledge work by introducing errors. On the other hand, it may also provide unprecedented opportunities for users, particularly non-experts, to learn and apply advanced software features and greatly increase the scope and complexity of tasks they can successfully achieve.
As an example of a complex knowledge workflow that is subject to risks and opportunities from generative AI, we consider the spreadsheet. AI hallucinations are an important challenge, but they are not the greatest risk posed by generative AI to spreadsheet workflows. Rather, as more work can be safely delegated to AI, the risk is that human critical thinking -- the ability to holistically and rigorously evaluate a problem and its solutions -- is degraded in the process. The solution is to design the interfaces of generative AI systems deliberately to foster and encourage critical thinking in knowledge work, building primarily on a long history of research on critical thinking tools for education.
We discuss a prototype system for the activity of critical shortlisting in spreadsheets. The system uses generative AI to suggest shortlisting criteria and applies these criteria to sort rows in a spreadsheet. It also generates "provocations": short text snippets that critique the AI-generated criteria, highlighting risks, shortcomings, and alternatives. Our prototype opens up a rich and completely unexplored design space of critical thinking tools for modern AI-assisted knowledge work. We outline a research agenda for AI as a critic or provocateur, including questions about where and when provocations should appear, their form and content, and potential design trade-offs.
△ Less
Submitted 19 December, 2024;
originally announced December 2024.
-
Dynamic Prompt Middleware: Contextual Prompt Refinement Controls for Comprehension Tasks
Authors:
Ian Drosos,
Jack Williams,
Advait Sarkar,
Nicholas Wilson
Abstract:
Effective prompting of generative AI is challenging for many users, particularly in expressing context for comprehension tasks such as explaining spreadsheet formulas, Python code, and text passages. Prompt middleware aims to address this barrier by assisting in prompt construction, but barriers remain for users in expressing adequate control so that they can receive AI-responses that match their…
▽ More
Effective prompting of generative AI is challenging for many users, particularly in expressing context for comprehension tasks such as explaining spreadsheet formulas, Python code, and text passages. Prompt middleware aims to address this barrier by assisting in prompt construction, but barriers remain for users in expressing adequate control so that they can receive AI-responses that match their preferences.
We conduct a formative survey (n=38) investigating user needs for control over AI-generated explanations in comprehension tasks, which uncovers a trade-off between standardized but predictable support for prompting, and adaptive but unpredictable support tailored to the user and task. To explore this trade-off, we implement two prompt middleware approaches: Dynamic Prompt Refinement Control (Dynamic PRC) and Static Prompt Refinement Control (Static PRC). The Dynamic PRC approach generates context-specific UI elements that provide prompt refinements based on the user's prompt and user needs from the AI, while the Static PRC approach offers a preset list of generally applicable refinements.
We evaluate these two approaches with a controlled user study (n=16) to assess the impact of these approaches on user control of AI responses for crafting better explanations. Results show a preference for the Dynamic PRC approach as it afforded more control, lowered barriers to providing context, and encouraged exploration and reflection of the tasks, but that reasoning about the effects of different generated controls on the final output remains challenging. Drawing on participant feedback, we discuss design implications for future Dynamic PRC systems that enhance user control of AI responses. Our findings suggest that dynamic prompt middleware can improve the user experience of generative AI workflows by affording greater control and guide users to a better AI response.
△ Less
Submitted 3 December, 2024;
originally announced December 2024.
-
Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions
Authors:
Bhuvanashree Murugadoss,
Christian Poelitz,
Ian Drosos,
Vu Le,
Nick McKenna,
Carina Suzana Negreanu,
Chris Parnin,
Advait Sarkar
Abstract:
LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT4 and Llama3 are expected to have strong alignment with human preferences when prompted for a quality judgement, such as the coherence o…
▽ More
LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT4 and Llama3 are expected to have strong alignment with human preferences when prompted for a quality judgement, such as the coherence of a text. While this seems beneficial, it is not clear whether the assessments by an LLM-as-a-judge constitute only an evaluation based on the instructions in the prompts, or reflect its preference for high-quality data similar to its fine-tune data. To investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements, we analyze prompts with increasing levels of instructions about the target quality of an evaluation, for several LLMs-as-a-judge. Further, we compare to a prompt-free method using model perplexity as a quality measure instead. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges. Overall, we show that the LLMs-as-a-judge benefit only little from highly detailed instructions in prompts and that perplexity can sometimes align better with human judgements than prompting, especially on textual quality.
△ Less
Submitted 16 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
"It's like a rubber duck that talks back": Understanding Generative AI-Assisted Data Analysis Workflows through a Participatory Prompting Study
Authors:
Ian Drosos,
Advait Sarkar,
Xiaotong Xu,
Carina Negreanu,
Sean Rintel,
Lev Tankelevitch
Abstract:
Generative AI tools can help users with many tasks. One such task is data analysis, which is notoriously challenging for non-expert end-users due to its expertise requirements, and where AI holds much potential, such as finding relevant data sources, proposing analysis strategies, and writing analysis code. To understand how data analysis workflows can be assisted or impaired by generative AI, we…
▽ More
Generative AI tools can help users with many tasks. One such task is data analysis, which is notoriously challenging for non-expert end-users due to its expertise requirements, and where AI holds much potential, such as finding relevant data sources, proposing analysis strategies, and writing analysis code. To understand how data analysis workflows can be assisted or impaired by generative AI, we conducted a study (n=15) using Bing Chat via participatory prompting. Participatory prompting is a recently developed methodology in which users and researchers reflect together on tasks through co-engagement with generative AI. In this paper we demonstrate the value of the participatory prompting method. We found that generative AI benefits the information foraging and sensemaking loops of data analysis in specific ways, but also introduces its own barriers and challenges, arising from the difficulties of query formulation, specifying context, and verifying results.
△ Less
Submitted 3 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Improving Steering and Verification in AI-Assisted Data Analysis with Interactive Task Decomposition
Authors:
Majeed Kazemitabaar,
Jack Williams,
Ian Drosos,
Tovi Grossman,
Austin Henley,
Carina Negreanu,
Advait Sarkar
Abstract:
LLM-powered tools like ChatGPT Data Analysis, have the potential to help users tackle the challenging task of data analysis programming, which requires expertise in data processing, programming, and statistics. However, our formative study (n=15) uncovered serious challenges in verifying AI-generated results and steering the AI (i.e., guiding the AI system to produce the desired output). We develo…
▽ More
LLM-powered tools like ChatGPT Data Analysis, have the potential to help users tackle the challenging task of data analysis programming, which requires expertise in data processing, programming, and statistics. However, our formative study (n=15) uncovered serious challenges in verifying AI-generated results and steering the AI (i.e., guiding the AI system to produce the desired output). We developed two contrasting approaches to address these challenges. The first (Stepwise) decomposes the problem into step-by-step subgoals with pairs of editable assumptions and code until task completion, while the second (Phasewise) decomposes the entire problem into three editable, logical phases: structured input/output assumptions, execution plan, and code. A controlled, within-subjects experiment (n=18) compared these systems against a conversational baseline. Users reported significantly greater control with the Stepwise and Phasewise systems, and found intervention, correction, and verification easier, compared to the baseline. The results suggest design guidelines and trade-offs for AI-assisted data analysis tools.
△ Less
Submitted 1 August, 2024; v1 submitted 2 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
"My toxic trait is thinking I'll remember this": gaps in the learner experience of video tutorials for feature-rich software
Authors:
Ian Drosos,
Advait Sarkar,
Andrew D. Gordon
Abstract:
Video tutorials are a popular medium for informal and formal learning. However, when learners attempt to view and follow along with these tutorials, they encounter what we call gaps, that is, issues that can prevent learning. We examine the gaps encountered by users of video tutorials for feature-rich software, such as spreadsheets. We develop a theory and taxonomy of such gaps, identifying how th…
▽ More
Video tutorials are a popular medium for informal and formal learning. However, when learners attempt to view and follow along with these tutorials, they encounter what we call gaps, that is, issues that can prevent learning. We examine the gaps encountered by users of video tutorials for feature-rich software, such as spreadsheets. We develop a theory and taxonomy of such gaps, identifying how they act as barriers to learning, by collecting and analyzing 360 viewer comments from 90 Microsoft Excel video tutorials published by 43 creators across YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram. We conducted contextual interviews with 8 highly influential tutorial creators to investigate the gaps their viewers experience and how they address them. Further, we obtain insights into their creative process and frustrations when creating video tutorials. Finally, we present creators with two designs that aim to address gaps identified in the comment analysis for feedback and alternative design ideas.
△ Less
Submitted 10 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Participatory prompting: a user-centric research method for eliciting AI assistance opportunities in knowledge workflows
Authors:
Advait Sarkar,
Ian Drosos,
Rob Deline,
Andrew D. Gordon,
Carina Negreanu,
Sean Rintel,
Jack Williams,
Benjamin Zorn
Abstract:
Generative AI, such as image generation models and large language models, stands to provide tremendous value to end-user programmers in creative and knowledge workflows. Current research methods struggle to engage end-users in a realistic conversation that balances the actually existing capabilities of generative AI with the open-ended nature of user workflows and the many opportunities for the ap…
▽ More
Generative AI, such as image generation models and large language models, stands to provide tremendous value to end-user programmers in creative and knowledge workflows. Current research methods struggle to engage end-users in a realistic conversation that balances the actually existing capabilities of generative AI with the open-ended nature of user workflows and the many opportunities for the application of this technology. In this work-in-progress paper, we introduce participatory prompting, a method for eliciting opportunities for generative AI in end-user workflows. The participatory prompting method combines a contextual inquiry and a researcher-mediated interaction with a generative model, which helps study participants interact with a generative model without having to develop prompting strategies of their own. We discuss the ongoing development of a study whose aim will be to identify end-user programming opportunities for generative AI in data analysis workflows.
△ Less
Submitted 27 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
-
Co-audit: tools to help humans double-check AI-generated content
Authors:
Andrew D. Gordon,
Carina Negreanu,
José Cambronero,
Rasika Chakravarthy,
Ian Drosos,
Hao Fang,
Bhaskar Mitra,
Hannah Richardson,
Advait Sarkar,
Stephanie Simmons,
Jack Williams,
Ben Zorn
Abstract:
Users are increasingly being warned to check AI-generated content for correctness. Still, as LLMs (and other generative models) generate more complex output, such as summaries, tables, or code, it becomes harder for the user to audit or evaluate the output for quality or correctness. Hence, we are seeing the emergence of tool-assisted experiences to help the user double-check a piece of AI-generat…
▽ More
Users are increasingly being warned to check AI-generated content for correctness. Still, as LLMs (and other generative models) generate more complex output, such as summaries, tables, or code, it becomes harder for the user to audit or evaluate the output for quality or correctness. Hence, we are seeing the emergence of tool-assisted experiences to help the user double-check a piece of AI-generated content. We refer to these as co-audit tools. Co-audit tools complement prompt engineering techniques: one helps the user construct the input prompt, while the other helps them check the output response. As a specific example, this paper describes recent research on co-audit tools for spreadsheet computations powered by generative models. We explain why co-audit experiences are essential for any application of generative AI where quality is important and errors are consequential (as is common in spreadsheet computations). We propose a preliminary list of principles for co-audit, and outline research challenges.
△ Less
Submitted 2 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
