PreprintCited by 20Open Source Software InnovationsSoftware Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

The Impact of Large Language Models on Open-source Innovation: Evidence from GitHub Copilot

Open access
Yeverechyahu, Doron, Mayya, Raveesh, Oestreicher-Singer, Gal·2024·SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are reshaping knowledge work, yet their impact on voluntary, self-guided open innovation forums (settings where contributors choose their own tasks without managerial direction) may differ fundamentally from effects observed in organizational settings. We study this question in open-source software development, where individuals’ contributions collectively drive innovation at a community level. Unlike product innovation, where typologies for classifying innovation are well established, knowledge work in open-source settings calls for a distinction grounded in the cognitive demand a task places on the contributor. Burgeoning literature distinguishes substantive contributions, which require creative problem formulation to introduce new functionality, from incremental contributions, which draw on comprehension of existing code to maintain and refine it. We exploit a natural experiment around GitHub Copilot’s launch in October 2021, where Copilot supported languages like Python while not supporting R for business reasons, creating an exogenous partition between otherwise comparable ecosystems. Using three complementary and independent identification strategies and two classification approaches, we find that Copilot availability increases the volume of open-source contributions by 28 to 40 percent. The increase in incremental contributions is significantly larger than the increase in substantive contributions across all specifications. This disparity is more pronounced in projects with higher activity levels and widens following a model upgrade: LLMs function more effectively when existing context (prior code, documentation, issue discussions) helps define the problem and constrain solutions, tilting collaborative innovation toward the exploitation of established codebases rather than the exploration of new functionality. This paper provides one of the rare instances of causal field evidence on LLM effects, given the speed at which Generative AI has exploded across the knowledge economy. Our findings highlight the need for open-source platforms and organizations that encourage open-source contributions to introduce deliberate incentives for substantive feature development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2139/ssrn.4684662

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Existing field experiments aimed at measuring AI's impact on software development measure outcomes like number of added lines of code or number of tasks completed.

    “Existing field experiments aimed at measuring AI's impact on software development measure outcomes like number of added lines of code or number of tasks completed [15; 16; 17].”
  • Other literature uses tasks found 'in the wild,' either via natural experiments or randomized controlled trials, finding 14-51% increases in output productivity metrics.

    “Other literature uses tasks found 'in the wild,' either via natural experiments [16] or randomized controlled trials [15; 17], finding 14-51% increases in output productivity metrics.”
  • Yeverechyahu et al. [16] found AI increased output by 37%.

    “Yeverechyahu et al. [16] | ↑ 37% output”

    From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as Yeverechyahu et al. [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yeverechyahu, D., Mayya, R., & Oestreicher-Singer, G.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Mayya, Raveesh
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393307211
Cited by
20
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Leonard N. Stern School of Business, New York University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
large language models, GitHub Copilot, open source software development, open innovation, knowledge work, generative AI, R programming language, innovation incentives, exploration versus exploitation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review