The Impact of Large Language Models on Open-source Innovation: Evidence from GitHub Copilot
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
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.”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
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
Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence
Noy, S., & Zhang, W. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh2586 · Cited by 2,150 · cited 7× · see citing works
“…affect the future of work and labor markets (Brynjolfsson et al., 2018; Eloundou et al., 2024), productivity and creativity (Brynjolfsson et al., 2023; Noy and Zhang 2023; Zhou and Lee 2024, Doshi and Houser 2024), and knowledge dissemination (Burtch et al., 2024; Horton 2023; Quinn and Gutt 2023).”
BackgroundInfluentialSynthetic Difference-in-Differences
Arkhangelsky, D., Athey, S., Hirshberg, D. A., Imbens, G. W., & Wager, S. (2021) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20190159 · Cited by 1,518 · see citing works
Generative artificial intelligence enhances creativity but reduces the diversity of novel content
Doshi, A., & Hauser, O. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4535536 · Cited by 887 · see citing works
GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models
Eloundou, T., Manning, S., Mishkin, P., & Rock, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.10130 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?
Horton, J., Filippas, A., & Manning, B. (2023) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w31122 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot
Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., & Demirer, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.06590 · Cited by 287 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Most research, including Peng et al. (2023), notes that LLMs enhance an individual’s ability to complete guided tasks.”
BackgroundInfluentialLarge Language Model in Creative Work: The Role of Collaboration Modality and User Expertise
Chen, Z., & Chan, J. (2024) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.03014 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cui, Z., Demirer, M., Jaffe, S., Musolff, L., Peng, S., & Salz, T. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4945566 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Song, F., Agarwal, A., & Wen, W. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal (preprint) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4856935 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Cui, K. Z., Demirer, M., Jaffe, S., Musolff, L., Peng, S., & Salz, T. (2026) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2025.00535 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
How Much Does AI Impact Development Speed? an Enterprise-Based Randomized Controlled Trial
Paradis, E., Grey, K., Madison, Q., Nam, D., Macvean, A., Meimand, V., Zhang, N., Ferrari-Church, B., & Chandra, S. (2025) · 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP) · doi:10.1109/icse-seip66354.2025.00060 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“Importantly, there is a growing literature suggesting that while coding assistants might be increasing the total number of code contributions [17], [54], AI might be lowering code quality at the ecosystem level [55], might increase code churn [21], and might not have reached a quality bar—either on…”
Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity
Becker, J., Rush, N., Barnes, E., & Rein, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.09089 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“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].”
Xu, F., Medappa, P. K., Tunc, M. M., Vroegindeweij, M., & Fransoo, J. C. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5521379 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Foster, D., & Germonprez, M. (2026) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.70060
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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