The Impact of AI on Developer Productivity: Evidence from GitHub Copilot
Open accessAbstract
Generative AI tools hold promise to increase human productivity. This paper presents results from a controlled experiment with GitHub Copilot, an AI pair programmer. Recruited software developers were asked to implement an HTTP server in JavaScript as quickly as possible. The treatment group, with access to the AI pair programmer, completed the task 55.8% faster than the control group. Observed heterogenous effects show promise for AI pair programmers to help people transition into software development careers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
2 of 5 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
There has been little research on productivity impacts of AI-powered tools in professional contexts.
“there has been little research on productivity impacts of AI-powered tools in professional contexts, cf.[Mozannar et al., 2022, Vaithilingam et al., 2022, Ziegler et al., 2022].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked- cites Mozannar et al., 2022 source
The Introduction (no page supplied) says existing evaluations of AI code completion leave insufficient detail about productivity gains and possible inefficiencies. That supports a narrower research gap in AI-assisted programming, but not the broader claim that little research has examined productivity impacts of AI tools across professional contexts. The Background and Related Work section, in fact, describes several productivity studies. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites Vaithilingam et al., 2022 source
- cites Ziegler et al., 2022 source
The Background section (page unavailable) describes this as the first study, to the authors’ knowledge, linking code-suggestion-tool usage measurements with developer productivity or happiness, and identifies two earlier studies. That supports limited prior research on AI code tools, but not the broader claim about AI-powered tools across professional contexts. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
The treatment group with access to GitHub Copilot completed the HTTP server task in JavaScript 55.8% faster than the control group (95% CI 21-89%).
“The treatment group, with access to the AI pair programmer, completed the task 55.8% faster than the control group.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“the treated group completed the task 55.8% faster (95% confidence interval: 21-89%).”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“This represents a 55.8% reduction in completion time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
- Findingown data
The difference in completion time between treated and control was statistically significant (p=0.0017).
“The p-value for the t-test is 0.0017, and a 95% confidence interval for the improvement is between [21%, 89%].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Copilot increases average productivity significantly in the experiment population.
“This result suggests that Copilot increases average productivity significantly in our experiment population.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The use of GitHub Classroom allowed accurate measurement of timing and completion for each participant.
“In this way, we accurately measured the timing and completion for each participant.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Interpretationown data
The higher willingness to pay of the treated group provides indirect evidence that the treated group benefited from Copilot during their task.
“This result provides indirect evidence that treated group benefited from Copilot during their task as their willingness to pay is significantly higher than the control group.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The observed heterogeneous effects show promise for AI pair programmers to help people transition into software development careers.
“Observed heterogenous effects show promise for AI pair programmers to help people transition into software development careers.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
“These heterogeneous effects point towards promise for AI-pair programmers in support of expanding access to careers in software development.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“the productivity benefits for novice programmers and programmers of older age point to important possibilities for skill initiatives that support job transitions into software development.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The treatment effect is a linear function of the covariates of interest.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
- Study design and conductown data
Telemetry verified that all participants in the treated group configured GitHub Copilot and accepted recommendations, except five who did not finish sign up and started without Copilot.
“We verify from telemetry after the experiment that all participants from the treated group have configured GitHub Copilot and accepted recommendations other than five who did not finish the sign up and thus started the experiment without the GitHub Copilot.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 6
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataParticipants in both treated and control groups estimated a 35% increase in productivity on average, which is an underestimation compared with the 55.8% increase in revealed productivity.
“On average, participants in both treated and control groups estimated a 35% increase in productivity, which is an underestimation compared with the 55.8% increase in their revealed productivity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe average completion time was 71.17 minutes for the treated group and 160.89 minutes for the control group.
“Conditioning on completing the task, the average completion time from the treated group is 71.17 minutes and 160.89 minutes for the control group.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataLess experienced developers, developers with heavy coding load, and older developers (aged 25-44) benefited more from Copilot.
“The results show that less experienced developers (years of professional coding), developers with heavy coding load (hours of coding per day), and older developers (developers aged between 25 and 44) benefit more from Copilot.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Developers with less programming experience, older programmers, and those who program more hours per day benefited the most.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The treatment effect is a linear function of the covariates of interest.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe treated group's success rate was 7 percentage points higher than the control group, but this difference was not statistically significant (95% CI [-0.11, 0.25]).
“We also find that the treated group's success rate is 7 percentage points higher than the control group, but the estimate is not statistically significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.11, 0.25].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningIf the heterogeneous result persists, the productivity benefits for novice programmers and programmers of older age point to important possibilities for skill initiatives that support job transitions into software development.
“If this result persists in further studies, the productivity benefits for novice programmers and programmers of older age point to important possibilities for skill initiatives that support job transitions into software development.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The treatment effect is a linear function of the covariates of interest.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataParticipants were randomly split into control and treatment groups.
“Once participants signed the contract, they were randomly split into control and treatment groups.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The 95 developers were randomly assigned into control and treated groups, with 45 in the treated group and 50 in control.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Results · plain
May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningIf the results were extrapolated to the population level, a 55.8% increase in productivity would imply significant cost savings in the economy and have a notable impact on GDP growth.
“If the results of this study were to be extrapolated to the population level, a 55.8% increase in productivity would imply a significant amount of cost savings in the economy and have a notable impact on GDP growth.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenParticipants could see the tests but were unable to alter them.
“Participants could see the tests but were unable to alter them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe potential productivity impacts of AI have major implications for the labor market and firms, including changes in employment, skills, and firm organization.
“The potential productivity impacts of AI have major implications for the labor market and firms, including changes in employment, skills, and firm organization [Raj andSeamans, 2018, Agrawal et al., 2019].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Raj andSeamans, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Agrawal et al., 2019 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataThirty-five developers from both the treated and control groups completed the task and survey.
“Thirty-five developers from both the treated and control groups completed the task and survey.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenProductivity benefits may vary across specific tasks and programming languages.
“Productivity benefits may vary across specific tasks and programming languages, so more research is needed to understand how our results generalizes to other tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningUsing a standardized task provides precise measures of performance.
“Using a standardized task provides us with precise measures of performance as it is difficult to measure productivity of software developers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
The treatment effect is a linear function of the covariates of interest.
“We assume the treatment effect is a linear function of the covariates of interest.”
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?
Empirical measurements often show more modest improvements than self-reported productivity gains from AI assistants.
“While developers consistently report significant productivity gains from these tools, empirical measurements often show more modest improvements.”
From Towards Decoding Developer Cognition in the Age of AI Assistants (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
The Results section reports the opposite comparison: participants estimated a 35% productivity increase, below the 55.8% measured increase. The Discussion also describes the measured improvement as statistically and practically significant. This study does not establish a general pattern across AI assistants. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredHuman-AI collaboration consistently improves measurable output quality in professional writing contexts.
“human-AI collaboration consistently improves measurable output quality in professional writing contexts”
From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
The Discussion reports faster completion of a standardized software-development task, not improved output quality in professional writing. It explicitly says the study did not examine code quality and that AI assistance could either increase or reduce it, contrary to the claim of consistent quality improvement. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA GitHub experiment with 95 participants found task completion was reduced by 55.8% in the Copilot condition.
“GitHub performed such an experiment where 95 participants were split into two groups and asked to write a web server.The study concluded by fnding that task completion was reduced by 55.8% in the Copilot condition [28].”
From Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
The Study Design reports 95 programmers randomly assigned to groups to write an HTTP server. The Results report a 55.8% reduction in *completion time among participants who completed the task*, not a reduction in task completion itself; the Copilot group's task-success rate was higher, though not significantly so. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEvidence from existing laboratory experiments generally suggests significant productivity effects of generative AI tools for software developers.
“Evidence from existing (laboratory) experiments generally suggests significant productivity effects of generative AI tools for software developers.”
From The Productivity Effects of Generative AI: Evidence from a Field Experiment with GitHub Copilot (2024) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Introduction reports a statistically significant productivity effect in a controlled trial: developers using GitHub Copilot completed a JavaScript task 55.8% faster. The Discussion describes this as one experiment on a standardized task and cautions that benefits may vary across tasks and languages. It does not establish what laboratory experiments generally find across generative AI tools. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPeng et al. (2023) found that professional programmers using GitHub Copilot completed an HTTP server task 55.8% faster, with no effect on whether the task was completed.
“Peng et al. (2023) hired 95 professional programmers to develop an HTTP server in JavaScript.The group that used GitHub Copilot completed the task 55.8% faster, yet there was no effect on whether the task was completed.”
From The Productivity Effects of Generative AI: Evidence from a Field Experiment with GitHub Copilot (2024) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
The Study Design says the researchers recruited 95 professional programmers to write an HTTP server in JavaScript. The Results report 55.8% less completion time among those who finished. They also report a 7-percentage-point higher task-success rate for the Copilot group, but say the difference was not statistically significant; that does not establish that Copilot had no effect on completion. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
AI tools demonstrably increase short-term productivity through faster task completion and reduced blocked time.
“While our participants reported, and prior work suggests [14,33,38,40], AI tools demonstrably increase short-term productivity through faster task completion and reduced blocked time”
From The Evolution of Information Seeking in Software Development: Understanding the Role and Impact of AI Assistants (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
The Results (page unavailable) report that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a programming task 55.8% faster than controls, supporting faster task completion and short-term productivity in that experiment. The paper does not report reduced blocked time as a separate outcome, and its Discussion cautions that the result may not generalize to other tasks or AI tools. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNovice programmers may place undue trust in AI-generated code without fully understanding its broader design or integration implications, increasing the likelihood of downstream quality and integration challenges.
“However, both Dakhel et al. (2023) and Peng et al. (2023) caution that novice programmers may place undue trust in AI-generated code without fully understanding its broader design or integration implications, increasing the likelihood of downstream quality and integration challenges.”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Discussion (page unavailable) cautions that AI assistance could reduce code quality if a programmer pays less attention to the code. It does not specifically say that novices place undue trust in generated code, fail to understand design or integration implications, or face downstream integration challenges; its discussion of novices concerns productivity benefits. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe introduction of GitHub Copilot leads to higher development activity at both the repository and individual levels, measured by commits and PR.
“First, the introduction of GitHub Copilot leads to higher development activity at both the repository and individual levels, measured by commits and PR”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Introduction reports that developers with Copilot completed a programming task 55.8% faster than controls, supporting a productivity benefit. The Study Design says performance was measured by task success and completion time; it does not report increased commits or pull requests at either the repository or individual level. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrior works have presented mixed results on whether AI helps or hinders coding productivity.
“Prior works have presented mixed results on whether AI helps or hinders coding productivity [Peng et al., 2023, Becker et al., 2025]; our study differs from prior results in that it is designed to study how AI affects skill formation while performing a task requiring new knowledge.”
From How AI Impacts Skill Formation (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
The Introduction reports that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a programming task 55.8% faster than controls, supporting the claim’s ‘helps’ side. The Discussion cautions that benefits may vary by task and language, but it does not report a finding that AI hinders coding productivity or establish that prior results were mixed. This verdict assesses Peng et al. only, not the other citation in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFor software engineering, AI assistance significantly improves productivity in daily tasks.
“Software engineering, in particular, has been identified as a profession in which AI tools can be readily applied and AI assistance significantly improves productivity in daily tasks [Peng et al., 2023, Cui et al., 2024].”
From How AI Impacts Skill Formation (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
The Introduction reports that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a programming task significantly faster than controls. The Discussion specifies that this was one standardized task and cautions that benefits may vary across tasks, so the paper does not establish significant productivity gains in daily software-engineering work generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI assistance produces significant productivity gains across professional domains, particularly for novice workers.
“AI assistance produces significant productivity gains across professional domains, particularly for novice workers.”
From How AI Impacts Skill Formation (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
The Introduction reports a statistically significant productivity gain for developers using GitHub Copilot on a JavaScript programming task, and the Results say less experienced developers benefited more. The paper does not establish gains across professional domains or for novice workers generally; the Discussion cautions that benefits may vary across tasks and programming languages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCui et al. (2024) estimate a 26% productivity gain from GitHub Copilot among software developers, and Peng et al. (2023) report a 58% increase.
“Cui et al. (2024) estimate a 26% productivity gain from GitHub Copilot among software developers, while Peng et al. (2023) report a 58% increase.”
From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
The Results (page not provided) report that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a standardized programming task 55.8% faster than the control group. This supports a substantial productivity benefit, but not the attributed figure of 58%. The separate Cui et al. estimate is not attributed to Peng et al. and is outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting empirical work on the micro-level effects of generative AI tools tends to find that access to these tools benefits less experienced workers more, compressing performance distributions.
“Existing empirical work on the micro-level effects of generative AI tools tends to find that access to these tools benefits less experienced workers more, compressing performance distributions [22; 23; 10; 24].”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
The Introduction and Discussion report that less experienced programmers benefited more from GitHub Copilot in this experiment. The paper does not establish that performance distributions compressed; its finding is limited to a standardized programming task. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLess experienced developers may rely more heavily on AI assistance.
“Prior work suggests that less experienced developers may rely more heavily on AI assistance [9]”
From Towards Decoding Developer Cognition in the Age of AI Assistants (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
The Results and Discussion report that less experienced programmers benefited more from GitHub Copilot. They do not establish that those programmers relied on it more heavily: a larger productivity benefit does not measure frequency or degree of reliance. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLM-based code generation shows significant productivity improvements (e.g., GitHub Copilot improves productivity 55.8%).
“LLM-based code generation shows significant productivity improvements (e.g., GitHub Copilot improves productivity 55.8% (Peng et al., 2023))”
From CodeCRDT: Observation-Driven Coordination for Multi-Agent LLM Code Generation (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
The Introduction and Discussion report a statistically significant result: developers with access to GitHub Copilot completed a JavaScript HTTP-server task 55.8% faster than controls. The claim presents 55.8% as a general productivity improvement, but the Discussion cautions that benefits may vary across tasks and programming languages. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe findings offer only partial support for the productivity gain hypothesis previously reported in technical writing contexts: while human-AI collaboration produces consistently acceptable prose with low variance, it does not demonstrably outperform original human writing in perceived quality, and gains from AI assistance in professional and technical domains do not translate straightforwardly to
“Our findings offer only partial support for the 'productivity gain' hypothesis previously reported in technical writing contexts (Noy and Zhang, 2023; Peng et al. 2023): while human-AI collaboration produces consistently acceptable prose with low variance, it does not demonstrably outperform original human writing in perceived quality”
From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPeng et al. (2023) found that software developers using GitHub Copilot completed entry-level tasks 55% faster than the control group.
“Peng et al. (2023) found comparable effects among software developers using GitHub Copilot, who completed entry-level tasks 55% faster than the control group.”
From How Creative Is AI Writing? Generative and Collaborative AI in Japanese Fiction (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
The Introduction reports that the GitHub Copilot group completed a JavaScript HTTP-server task 55.8% faster than the control group, supporting the approximate 55% figure. The Study Design describes one specific task, not a set of tasks characterized as entry-level, so that part of the claim is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs can streamline research processes, enhance productivity, and allow experts to focus on higher-level analytical tasks.
“Dell’Acqua et al. [1] and Peng et al. [2] demonstrated that these tools can streamline research processes, enhance productivity, and allow experts to focus on higher-level analytical tasks.”
From Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows for clinical and translational research (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
The Discussion reports that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a standardized programming task 55.8% faster, supporting the productivity claim. It does not establish that the tool streamlines research processes or frees experts for higher-level analytical tasks; the Discussion says how job tasks would change remains unclear. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrior studies show that generative AI can enhance individual developer productivity, measured as the amount of code generated per developer.
“Prior studies show that generative AI can enhance individual developer productivity, measured as the amount of code generated per developer (i.e., intensive margin)”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Results section reports that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a programming task 55.8% faster, supporting an individual productivity benefit. But the Study Design section defines its performance measures as task success and completion time, not the amount of code generated per developer. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAI pair programmers reduce the expected costs of code contributions by lowering the time and effort required to complete development tasks.
“while reducing expected costs by lowering the time and effort required to complete development tasks.”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Introduction reports that developers using GitHub Copilot completed a JavaScript programming task 55.8% faster than controls. The Discussion says extrapolating that productivity gain could imply cost savings, but the study did not measure effort or the costs of code contributions, and cautions that benefits may vary across tasks. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrior studies on generative AI generally show that lower skilled individuals benefit more from AI tools because AI reduces task completion costs.
“Prior studies on generative AI generally show that lower skilled individuals benefit more from AI tools because AI reduces task completion costs (e.g., Peng et al. 2023, Cui et al. 2026).”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Results report that less experienced developers benefited more from Copilot and that the treated group completed the programming task faster. But this is one study of a specific tool and task; it does not establish that generative AI generally benefits lower-skilled people more, or that reduced task-completion costs explain the greater benefit. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA recent GitHub study found Copilot could potentially reduce task completion time by a factor of two.
“In fact, a recent study from GitHub, found that Copilot could potentially reduce task completion time by a factor of two [28].”
From Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
The finding of no statistically significant difference after adopting Copilot differs from prior studies (Al-Ahmad et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2024; Peng et al., 2023; Rajbhoj et al., 2024).
“For Copilot users, our findings suggest a relatively small increase in average weekly activity; however, there is no statistically significant difference after adopting Copilot, which differs from prior studies (Al-Ahmad et al., 2024; Cui et al., 2024; Peng et al., 2023; Rajbhoj et al., 2024).”
From Developer Productivity With and Without GitHub Copilot: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Case Study (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
Prior studies focus on short-term gains in controlled or semi-controlled settings, either by measuring task completion time or by simulating software projects.
“Instead, they focus on short-term gains in controlled or semi-controlled settings, either by measuring task completion time (Peng et al., 2023), or by simulating software projects to illustrate how GenAI tools can assist developers during different phases of the development process (Al-Ahmad et al., 2024; Rajbhoj et al., 2024).”
From Developer Productivity With and Without GitHub Copilot: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Case Study (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
Peng et al. (2023) found that participants with access to GitHub Copilot completed standardized programming tasks 55.8% faster.
“For example, Peng et al. (2023) found that participants with access to GitHub Copilot completed standardized programming tasks 55.8% faster.”
From Developer Productivity With and Without GitHub Copilot: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Case Study (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
GitHub Copilot increases software developer productivity.
“GenAI solutions like GitHub Copilot have been shown to increase the productivity of software developers.”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
AI tools lower the skill barrier for writing code.
“Because AI tools can lower the skill barrier for writing code (Dakhel et al. 2023)”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
Less experienced programmers appear to benefit more from the use of Copilot.
“These maintenance-related concerns are amplified by evidence that less experienced programmers appear to benefit more from the use of Copilot.”
From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
GenAI coding assistants have demonstrated considerable potential to enhance developer productivity.
“GenAI coding assistants have demonstrated considerable potential to enhance developer productivity.”
From The Effects of GitHub Copilot on Computing Students' Programming Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Processes in Brownfield Coding Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Cui et al. (2025), Gambacorta, Qiu, Shan, and Rees (2024), and Peng, Kalliamvakou, Cihon, and Demirer (2023) document strong productivity increases for software development tasks, with larger gains among less experienced developers.
“Cui et al. (2025); Gambacorta, Qiu, Shan, and Rees (2024); Peng, Kalliamvakou, Cihon, and Demirer (2023) document strong productivity increases for software development tasks, again with larger gains among less experienced developers.”
From Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway (2026) · cites this paper as Peng, Kalliamvakou, Cihon, and Demirer (2023)
Contrary to previous work, our results do not show a significant improvement in productivity if we only look at the total completion time across the treatment and control groups.
“Contrary to previous work finding significant uplift or speedup of AI assistance for coding [Peng et al., 2023, Cui et al., 2024], our results do not show a significant improvement in productivity if we only look at the total completion time across the treatment and control groups.”
From How AI Impacts Skill Formation (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
Randomized trials find productivity gains above 15% in the occupations studied here.
“significant productivity gains-often exceeding 15%-documented by RCTs in our study occupations”
From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
Reported time savings are highest in occupations covered by RCTs, including customer and IT support, marketing and human resources, and software development.
“First, our reported time savings are highest precisely in the occupations covered by RCTs, such as customer and IT support (Brynjolfsson, Li and Raymond, 2025), marketing and human resources (Noy and Zhang, 2023), and software development (Peng et al., 2023).”
From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al., 2023
Peng et al. found 56% speedup on coding tasks when using AI assistance.
“Peng et al. [10] and Paradis et al. [11] find 56% and 21% speedups on coding tasks when using AI assistance”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Frontier AI systems demonstrate impressive capabilities on a wide range of software benchmarks and in experiments measuring AI's impact on developer productivity when completing synthetic tasks.
“Frontier AI systems demonstrate impressive capabilities on a wide range of software benchmarks [3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9] and in experiments measuring AI's impact on developer productivity when completing synthetic tasks [10; 11].”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Peng et al.'s task is unrepresentative of most software development work and likely similar to a large amount of LLM training data, which may unfairly advantage AI systems relative to humans.
“For example, Peng et al. [10] asks developers to implement a very basic HTTP server in JavaScript to satisfy several automatic test cases that are shown to the developers-this task is a) unrepresentative of most software development work, and b) likely to be similar to a large amount of LLM training data, which may unfairly advantage AI systems relative to humans.”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Peng et al. [10] found AI made developers 56% faster.
“Peng et al. [10] | ↑ 56% faster”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. [10]
AI helps the study's developers less than in existing literature because the developers have substantially more experience on their repositories (5 years and 1,500 commits on average).
“We hypothesize that analogously, AI helps our developers less compared to existing literature [10; 11] because our developers have substantially more experience on their respective repositories (5 years and 1,500 commits on average).”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
Limited token spend would not explain the difference between the study's results and other work that finds positive speedup for programming tasks.
“We note that limited token spend would not explain the difference between our results and other work that find positive speedup for programming tasks [10; 17].”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
AI broadly helps the study's developers less than in existing randomized controlled trials because of the overall size and complexity of the included repositories.
“We hypothesize that analogously to these size and complexity effects within our study, AI broadly helps our developers less compared to existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) measuring speedup from AI tools because of the overall size and complexity of the repositories included”
From Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity (2025) · cites this paper as [10]
In a controlled experiment with 95 professional developers, access to GitHub Copilot led to a 55.8% reduction in task completion time for implementing an HTTP server, with less experienced and older developers benefiting the most.
“In a controlled experiment with 95 professional developers, Peng et.al. [9] found that access to GitHub Copilot led to a 55.8% reduction in task completion time for implementing an HTTP server, with less experienced and older developers benefiting the most.”
From Towards Decoding Developer Cognition in the Age of AI Assistants (2025) · cites this paper as [9]
The 34.9% reduction in task completion time and 26.2% improvement in test pass rates align with previous studies of GenAI programming assistants on professional programmers and undergraduate students in greenfield scenarios.
“The 34.9% reduction in task completion time and 26.2% improvement in test pass rates align with previous studies of the impact of GenAI programming assistants on both professional programmers [26, 28] and undergraduate students [13, 32] in greenfield programming scenarios.”
From The Effects of GitHub Copilot on Computing Students' Programming Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Processes in Brownfield Coding Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Peng et al. (2023) found that the treatment group using GitHub Copilot completed the task 55.8% faster on average.
“The authors report that the treatment group completed the task 55.8% faster on average.”
From Echoes of AI: Investigating the downstream effects of AI assistants on software maintainability (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
GitHub's research (Peng et al. 2023) reported a 55% improvement in completion time from working with AI.
“GitHub's research (Peng et al. 2023), which reported a 55% improvement.”
From Echoes of AI: Investigating the downstream effects of AI assistants on software maintainability (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
Peng et al. (2023) reported a 55.8% speedup when implementing an HTTP server in JavaScript.
“For example, Peng et al. (2023) reported a 55.8% speedup when implementing an HTTP server in JavaScript;”
From Echoes of AI: Investigating the downstream effects of AI assistants on software maintainability (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
Peng et al. (2023) reported that junior developers benefited the most from GitHub Copilot.
“The early work by Peng et al. (2023) reported that junior developers benefited the most from GitHub Copilot,”
From Echoes of AI: Investigating the downstream effects of AI assistants on software maintainability (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
Developers who used Copilot completed a JavaScript-based task 55.8% faster than those who did not have access to the tool.
“Developers who used Copilot completed a JavaScript-based task 55.8% faster than those who did not have access to the tool”
From How do Copilot Suggestions Impact Developers' Frustration and Productivity? (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. [12]
A controlled experiment by Peng et al. (2023) found that GitHub Copilot significantly boosted productivity: the group using Copilot completed programming tasks approximately 56% faster than the control group without access to the tool.
“For example, a controlled experiment by Peng et al. (2023) found that GitHub Copilot, a generative AI programming aid, significantly boosted productivity: the group using Copilot completed programming tasks approximately 56% faster than the control group without access to the tool.”
From Large language models at work in China’s labor market (2025) · cites this paper as Peng et al. (2023)
Current studies have small sample sizes.
“Other shortcomings include missing nuance or understanding of the impact of AI tools by developer- or task-level contexts (e.g., [13]), limited tool and task complexity in experimental settings (e.g., using GitHub Classroom rather than a more naturalistic developer environment [12]), and small sample sizes (e.g., only 32 participants in [15], 24 participants in [16], or 21 participants in [17]).”
From How Much Does AI Impact Development Speed? an Enterprise-Based Randomized Controlled Trial (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
The operational and environmental costs of these models pose significant challenges.
“their operational and environmental costs pose significant challenges [6, 30].”
From A Transformer-Based Approach for Smart Invocation of Automatic Code Completion (2024) · cites this paper as [30]
The Discussion addresses Copilot’s productivity effects and possible economic impacts, but does not discuss the operational or environmental costs of AI models. Searches for those costs, including energy consumption and carbon emissions, found no passage in our copy that supports the claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOur results are consistent with those of Peng et al. (2023).
“Our results are consistent with those of Peng et al. (2023)”
From Echoes of AI: Investigating the downstream effects of AI assistants on software maintainability (2026) · cites this paper as Peng et al. 2023
The Results section reports that participants with Copilot completed the task 55.8% faster than controls. The citing sentence does not describe its own results, so the source paper alone cannot establish whether the two sets of results are consistent. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCopilot's suggestions are perceived as invasive by experienced developers.
“Peng et al. [12] showed that Copilot's suggestions are perceived as invasive by experienced developer.”
From How do Copilot Suggestions Impact Developers' Frustration and Productivity? (2025) · cites this paper as [12]
The Results section reports that less experienced developers benefited more from Copilot, and the exit survey asked about productivity gains. Neither passage reports whether experienced developers perceived its suggestions as invasive; searches for invasive or intrusive suggestions found no such finding in our copy. The passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [4]4. Athey, S. and Imbens, G. W. (2015). Machine learning methods for estimating heterogeneous causal effects. stat, 1050(5):1-26.
- [24]24. Raj, M. and Seamans, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence, labor, pro- ductivity, and the need for firm-level data. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda, pages 553-565. University of Chicago Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjae044 · Cited by 1,083 · see citing works
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2023) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w31161 · Cited by 995 · see citing works
Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland III, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4573321 · Cited by 794 · 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
“This could lower the cost and engineering expertise required to create such tools, potentially accelerating LLM adoption and integration even further (Chen et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2023).”
BackgroundLarge language models for software engineering: survey and open problems
Fan, A., Gokkaya, B., Harman, M., Lyubarskiy, M., Sengupta, S., Yoo, S., & Zhang, J. M. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Future of Software Engineering (ICSE-FoSE) · doi:10.1109/icse-fose59343.2023.00008 · Cited by 650 · see citing works
“Similarly, Peng et al. [39] reported that programmers could complete a non-trivial task (implementing an HTTP server in JavaScript) 56% faster when paired with GitHub Copilot, compared to the control group that did not receive any such support.”
MethodGenerative artificial intelligence, human creativity, and art
Zhou, E., & Lee, D. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae052 · Cited by 459 · see citing works
The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J.-F., Brañas-Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., et al. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Computing Education in the Era of Generative AI
Denny, P., Prather, J., Becker, B. A., Finnie-Ansley, J., Hellas, A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Reeves, B. N., Santos, E. A., & Sarsa, S. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3624720 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
“…source code automatically from natural language descriptions of problems is likely to greatly improve the productivity of professional developers [28], and is being actively explored by well-funded entities such as OpenAI (ChatGPT, Codex, GPT-x ), Amazon (CodeWhisperer), and Google (AlphaCode,…”
BackgroundGenerative AI for economic research: use cases and implications for economists
Korinek, A. (2023) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20231736 · Cited by 293 · see citing works
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2026) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103599 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
“Moreover, applications are no longer confined to narrow domains like simulations or logistics, but now extend to broad practical settings demanding real-time reasoning and adaptive control.”
Artificial Intelligence & Creativity: A Manifesto for Collaboration
Vinchon, F., Lubart, T., Bartolotta, S., Gironnay, V., Botella, M., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Burkhardt, J., Bonnardel, N., Corazza, G. E., Glăveanu, V., et al. (2023) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.597 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D., Yang, X., Vodrahalli, K., He, S., Smith, D., Yin, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01783 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Denny, P., Becker, B. A., Leinonen, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Powell, G., Finnie-Ansley, J., & Santos, E. A. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3617367 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Navigating the Complexity of Generative AI Adoption in Software Engineering
Russo, D. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3652154 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
“The integration of AI not only reduces the time commitment for these activities but also enhances the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the software development process [62].”
BackgroundMethodKnowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E., & Mousavi, R. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00859 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018
Autor, D., Chin, C., Salomons, A., & Seegmiller, B. (2022) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjae008 · Cited by 277 · see citing works
The Widening Gap: The Benefits and Harms of Generative AI for Novice Programmers
Prather, J., Reeves, B. N., Leinonen, J., MacNeil, S., Randrianasolo, A. S., Becker, B. A., Kimmel, B., Wright, J., & Briggs, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1 · doi:10.1145/3632620.3671116 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges
Sapkota, R., Roumeliotis, K. I., & Karkee, M. (2025) · SuperIntelligence - Robotics - Safety & Alignment · doi:10.70777/si.v2i3.15161 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Dell’Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E., Lifshitz, H., Kellogg, K. C., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2026) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2025.21838 · Cited by 1,189 · see citing works
“ChatGPT seems too good to be true”: College students’ use and perceptions of generative AI
Baek, C., Tate, T., & Warschauer, M. (2024) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100294 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
The Uneven Impact of Generative AI on Entrepreneurial PerformancePreprint
Otis, N. G., Clarke, R. P., Delecourt, S., Holtz, D., & Koning, R. M. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/hdjpk · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Chuang, Y., Chiang, H.-L., & Lin, A.-P. (2025) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102887 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Measuring GitHub Copilot's Impact on Productivity
Ziegler, A., Kalliamvakou, E., Li, X. A., Rice, A., Rifkin, D., Simister, S., Sittampalam, G., & Aftandilian, E. (2024) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3633453 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Self-citationGenerative 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
Addressing 6 challenges in generative AI for digital health: A scoping review
Templin, T., Perez, M. W., Sylvia, S., Leek, J. T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, N. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000503 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Fan, G., Liu, D., Zhang, R., & Pan, L. (2025) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-025-00537-3 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“This finding is consistent with recent research on the benefits of AI-assisted coding (Barke et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023).”
A Survey of Generative AI Applications
Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Merchan, E. E. G. (2024) · Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.3844/jcssp.2024.801.818 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Managing a ChatGPT-empowered workforce: Understanding its affordances and side effects
Retkowsky, J., Hafermalz, E., & Huysman, M. (2024) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2024.04.009 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming
Mozannar, H., Bansal, G., Fourney, A., & Horvitz, E. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641936 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
An Autoethnographic Case Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence's Utility for Accessibility
Glazko, K. S., Yamagami, M., Desai, A., Mack, K. A., Potluri, V., Xu, X., & Mankoff, J. (2023) · The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3597638.3614548 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
“As GAI is being taken up by everyday users in a wide variety of domains from communication [1, 19, 34] to computer programming [35], it is imperative that we understand how GAI can be helpful and useful specifically to disabled people.”
BackgroundMethodPinski, M., Hofmann, T., & Benlian, A. (2024) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-024-00707-1 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
“…30% of firms, according to the global executive study, have already found value-generating use cases of AI, and more use cases are continuously being developed, such as recent applications of generative AI in customer service or software development (Brynjolfsson et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023).”
Cui, Z., Demirer, M., Jaffe, S., Musolff, L., Peng, S., & Salz, T. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4945566 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Notorious GPT: science communication in the age of artificial intelligence
Schäfer, M. S. (2023) · Journal of Science Communication · doi:10.22323/2.22020402 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“…fundamentally impact, even “disrupt” many realms of life [e.g. Johnson, 2022]: the economy [Eloundou, Manning, Mishkin & Rock, 2023], programming [Peng, Kalliamvakou, Cihon & Demirer, 2023], journalism [Pavlik, 2023], art [Eisikovits & Stubbs, 2023], music [Nicolaou, 2023], sports [Goldberg,…”
ChatGPT in the Classroom. Exploring Its Potential and Limitations in a Functional Programming Course
Popovici, M.-D. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2269006 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
“A more recent study conducted by Peng et al. (2023) involving 95 participants has yielded a very different outcome.”
Initial policy considerations for generative artificial intelligence
Lorenz, P., Perset, K., & Berryhill, J. (2023) · OECD artificial intelligence papers · doi:10.1787/fae2d1e6-en · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Boguslawski, S., Deer, R., & Dawson, M. G. (2025) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-10-2023-0163 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
“Peng et al. (2023) found that less experienced programmers bene fi ted more, but there was nonetheless a productivity gain for developers across all experience levels, highlighting a need for further research in this area.”
BackgroundSignificant Productivity Gains through Programming with Large Language Models
Weber, T., Brandmaier, M., Schmidt, A., & Mayer, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3661145 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“In the domain of auto-complete systems, Peng et al. [40] conducted a between-groups experiment where participants had to create an HTTP server using JavaScript.”
MethodResultEconomic impacts of AI-augmented R&D
Besiroglu, T., Emery-Xu, N., & Thompson, N. (2024) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2024.105037 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Kuhail, M. A., Mathew, S. S., Khalil, A., Berengueres, J., & Shah, S. J. H. (2024) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2024.103111 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
del Rio-Chanona, R. M., Laurentsyeva, N., & Wachs, J. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae400 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
“Because ChatGPT performs relatively well on software programming tasks (15), we study Stack Overflow, the largest online Q&A platform for software development and programming.”
Are Large Language Models a Threat to Digital Public Goods? Evidence from Activity on Stack Overflow
del Rio-Chanona, M., Laurentsyeva, N., & Wachs, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.07367 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Mcneese, N. J., Flathmann, C., O'Neill, T. A., & Salas, E. (2023) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.107874 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Obschonka, M., Grégoire, D. A., Nikolaev, B., Ooms, F., Lévesque, M., Pollack, J. M., & Behrend, T. S. (2024) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/10422587241304676 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“Academic work has started documenting substantial productivity gains in a wide range of creative and knowledge intensive tasks such as coding (Peng et al., 2023), creative writing (Doshi & Hauser, 2024), professional business tasks (Noy & Zhang, 2023), ideation (Girotra et al., 2023), strategic…”
Kobiella, C., Flores López, Y. S., Waltenberger, F., Draxler, F., & Schmidt, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641964 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) and specifically ChatGPT are incorporated into knowledge work because they promise increased productivity [28, 34, 70, 74].”
BackgroundCopiloting the future: How generative AI transforms Software Engineering
Banh, L., Holldack, F., & Strobel, G. (2025) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107751 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Chen, J., Lu, X., Du, Y., Rejtig, M., Bagley, R., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. J. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642377 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“As the field just started exploring this direction, previous studies mostly focused on general user impressions[102], orconductedbehavioraltasksonpre-scripted,close-endedtasks[62].”
BackgroundChatGPT for PLC/DCS Control Logic Generation
Koziolek, H., Grüner, S., & Ashiwal, V. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) · doi:10.1109/etfa54631.2023.10275411 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“GitHub Copilot uses GPT-3 and has provided a 55 percent developer productivity boost in experiments [2].”
MethodLarge language models can help boost food production, but be mindful of their risks
Clercq, D. D., Nehring, E., Mayne, H., & Mahdi, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1326153 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“One study revealed that developers using Copilot completed their coding tasks over 50% faster than their counterparts who did not have access to the tool [37].”
BackgroundHarnessing generative artificial intelligence to support nature‐based solutions
Richards, D. R., Worden, D., Song, X. P., & Lavorel, S. (2024) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10622 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
New Paradigm for Economic and Financial Research With Generative AI: Impact and Perspective
Zheng, X., Li, J., Lu, M., & Wang, F. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2023.3334306 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“Nevertheless, in terms of tasks that require repetitive work, GAI can also complement human labor by enhancing productivity and ef fi ciency [10].”
BackgroundCan LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts?
Ahmed, T., Dévanbu, P., Treude, C., & Pradel, M. (2025) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1109/msr66628.2025.00086 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models in Primary Care Medical Education
Parente, D. J. (2024) · Family Medicine · doi:10.22454/fammed.2024.775525 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“57 I call on the primary care research community to develop pilot LLM-based simulations, validate themwithrespecttohallucinationandbias,andsubjectthemto economiccost-benefitanalysistodeterminetheirperformance compared to (a) traditional simulation, and (b) other teaching methods (eg, didactic…”
Liu, J., & Li, S. (2024) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331241240460 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Winners and losers of generative AI: Early Evidence of Shifts in Freelancer Demand
Teutloff, O., Einsiedler, J., Kässi, O., Braesemann, F., Mishkin, P., & del Rio-Chanona, R. M. (2025) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106845 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Navigating software development in the ChatGPT and GitHub copilot era
France, S. L. (2024) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2024.05.009 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
ChatGPT and Beyond: Exploring the Responsible Use of Generative AI in the Workplace
Söllner, M., Arnold, T., Benlian, A., Bretschneider, U., Knight, C., Ohly, S., Rudkowski, L., Schreiber, G., & Wendt, D. H. (2025) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-025-00932-8 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“With the use of GitHub’s Copilot, the average completion time of a standard programming task decreased by more than 50%, with no significant difference in success rate.”
Using ChatGPT and Other Large Language Model (LLM) Applications for Academic Paper Assignments
Jungherr, A. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/d84q6 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
The impact of Artificial Intelligence on productivity, distribution and growth
Filippucci, F., Gál, P., Jona‐Lasinio, C., Leandro, Á., & Nicoletti, G. (2024) · OECD artificial intelligence papers · doi:10.1787/8d900037-en · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Generative AI: driving productivity and scientific breakthroughs in pharmaceutical R&D
Doron, G., Genway, S., Roberts, M., & Jasti, S. (2024) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104272 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Generative AI at WorkPreprint
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4426942 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI
Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2025) · doi:10.3386/w33777 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
ChatGPT Hallucinates Non-existent Citations: Evidence from Economics
Buchanan, J., Hill, S., & Shapoval, O. (2024) · The American Economist · doi:10.1177/05694345231218454 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“Economists predict that Arti fi cial Intelligence (AI) tools like OpenAI ’ s ChatGPTwill make human workers more productive (Eloundou et al., 2023; Goldfarb et al., 2023; Peng et al., 2023).”
BackgroundArtificial intelligence, tasks, skills, and wages: Worker-level evidence from Germany
Engberg, E., Koch, M. R., Lodefalk, M., & Schroeder, S. (2025) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2025.105285 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
The Uneven Impact of Generative AI on Entrepreneurial PerformancePreprint
Otis, N. G., Clarke, R. P., Delecourt, S., Holtz, D., & Koning, R. M. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4671369 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Zhou, X., Liang, P., Zhang, B., Li, Z., Ahmad, A., Shahin, M., & Waseem, M. (2025) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112204 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“Some prior research investigated the quality of the code generated by Copilot (Yetistiren et al., 2022) (Nguyen and Nadi, 2022), while others examined its performance in practical software development (Imai, 2022) (Barke et al., 2023) (Peng et al., 2023).”
Song, F., Agarwal, A., & Wen, W. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal (preprint) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4856935 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Shifting Work Patterns with Generative AI
Dillon, E. W., Jaffe, S., Immorlica, N., & Stanton, C. (2025) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w33795 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
The power of generative marketing: Can generative AI create superhuman visual marketing content?Preprint
Hartmann, J., Exner, Y., & Domdey, S. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4597899 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
The Consequences of Generative AI for UGC and Online Community EngagementPreprint
Burtch, G., Lee, D., & Chen, Z. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4521754 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
“Here, it is worth noting that both Noy and Zhang (2023) and Peng et al. (2023) observed heterogeneity in the treatment effects, such that systematically greater productivity benefits were observed among lesser-skilled or lower-quality workers.”
BackgroundShihab, M. I. H., Hundhausen, C., Tariq, A., Haque, S., Qiao, Y., & Mulanda, B. W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research V.1 · doi:10.1145/3702652.3744219 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Should Users Trust Advanced AI Assistants? Justified Trust As a Function of Competence and Alignment
Manzini, A., Keeling, G., Marchal, N., McKee, K. R., Rieser, V., & Gabriel, I. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658964 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
The Impact of Generative AI Images on Consumer Attitudes in Advertising
Zhang, L., & Hur, C. (2025) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci15100395 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Knowledge Management Perspective of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)Preprint
Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E., & Mousavi, R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4782875 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Large Language Models, Small Labor Market Effects
Humlum, A., & Vestergaard, E. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5219933 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Does generative AI facilitate investor Trading? Early evidence from ChatGPT outages
Cheng, Q., Lin, P., & Zhao, Y. (2025) · Journal of Accounting & Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2025.101821 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Will Artificial Intelligence Get in the Way of Achieving Gender Equality?
Carvajal, D., Franco, C., & Isaksson, S. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4759218 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Haslberger, M., Gingrich, J. R., & Bhatia, J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4594466 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Alam, M. F., Lentsch, A., Yu, N., Barmack, S., Kim, S., Acemoğlu, D., Hart, A. J., Johnson, S., & Ahmed, F. (2024) · doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.e39b392d · Cited by 26 · see citing works
"Generate" the Future of Work through AI: Empirical Evidence from Online Labor MarketsPreprint
Liu, J., Xu, X.-C., Li, Y.-J., & Tan, Y. (2023) · Social Science Research Network · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4529739 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
The Productivity Effects of Generative AI: Evidence from a Field Experiment with GitHub Copilot
Cui, K. Z., Demirer, M., Jaffe, S., Musolff, L., Peng, S., & Salz, T. (2024) · An MIT Exploration of Generative AI · doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.3ad85f1c · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationThe impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy makingPreprint
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoğlu, D., Akgün, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Bonnefon, J., Brañas‐Garza, P., Butera, L., Douglas, K. M., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/6fd2y · Cited by 36 · see citing works
The Labor Market Effects of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Hartley, J., Jolevski, F., Melo, V., & Moore, B. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5136877 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Data Authenticity, Consent, and Provenance for AI Are All Broken: What Will It Take to Fix Them?
Longpre, S., Mahari, R., Obeng-Marnu, N., Brannon, W., South, T., Kabbara, J., & Pentland, A. (2024) · doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.a650f77d · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Rasheed, Z., Waseem, M., Ahmad, A., Kemell, K., Wang, X., NguyenDuc, A., & Abrahamsson, P. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5149683 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
The Impact of Large Language Models on Open-source Innovation: Evidence from GitHub Copilot
Yeverechyahu, D., Mayya, R., & Oestreicher-Singer, G. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4684662 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
“Most research, including Peng et al. (2023), notes that LLMs enhance an individual’s ability to complete guided tasks.”
BackgroundInfluentialCui, 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
Self-citationGenerative AI, Human Creativity, and Art
Zhou, E., & Lee, D. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4594824 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Kemell, K., Saarikallio, M., Nguyen‐Duc, A., & Abrahamsson, P. (2025) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107805 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Generative AI in Higher Education: Evidence from an Elite College
Contractor, Z., & Reyes, G. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5392712 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
What an AI-Embracing Software Engineering Curriculum Should Look Like: An Empirical Study
Randall, N., Wäckerle, D., Stein, N., Goßler, D., & Bente, S. (2024) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2023.3344682 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
How effective is AI augmentation in human–AI collaboration? Evidence from a field experiment
Liao, C., Wen, X., Li, S., & Du, P. (2024) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-11-2022-0859 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Developer Behaviors in Validating and Repairing LLM-Generated Code Using IDE and Eye Tracking
Tang, N., Chen, M., Ning, Z., Bansal, A., Huang, Y., McMillan, C., & Li, T. J.-J. (2024) · 2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC) · doi:10.1109/vl/hcc60511.2024.00015 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Large language models at work in China’s labor market
Chen, Q., Ge, J., Xie, H., Xu, X., & Yang, Y. (2025) · China Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.chieco.2025.102413 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“…disruptive labor market impacts of LLMs is emerging quickly, however, it predominantly focuses attention on the labor market in developed economy, in particularly U.S. (Eloundou et al. 2023; Peng et al. 2023; Noy and Zhang 2023; Brynjolfsson, Li, and Raymond 2023; Felten, Raj, and Seamans 2023).”
Who Is AI Replacing? The Impact of Generative AI on Online Freelancing PlatformsPreprint
Demirci, O., Hannane, J., & Zhu, X. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4602944 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Bringing Worker Voice into Generative AI
Kochan, T. A., Armstrong, B., Shah, J., Castilla, E. J., Likis, B., & Mangelsdorf, M. E. (2024) · doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.0d255ab6 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Generative AI and Copyright: A Dynamic PerspectivePreprint
Yang, S. A., & Zhang, A. H. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4716233 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“In the business and management literature, an emerging research stream specifically focuses on how the adoption of generative AI affects user productivity (e.g., Peng et al. 2023, Noy and Zhang 2023, Dell’Acqua et al. 2023) and creativity (e.g., Zhou and Lee 2023).”
What Guides Our Choices? Modeling Developers' Trust and Behavioral Intentions Towards Genai
Choudhuri, R., Trinkenreich, B., Pandita, R., Kalliamvakou, E., Steinmacher, I., Gerosa, M. A., Sanchez, C. A., & Sarma, A. (2025) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1109/icse55347.2025.00087 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationAn Experiment on Leveraging ChatGPT for Online Teaching and Assessment of Database Students
Carr, N., Shawon, F. R., & Jamil, H. M. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering · doi:10.1109/tale56641.2023.10398239 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Although scant and too early, recent research on a LLM-based AI code generator GitHub Copilot indicate learning gains [32, 39] and productivity improvement [15, 31], more formal evaluations are slowly trickling in [13, 27, 43].”
ResultGenerative AI Uses and Risks for Knowledge Workers in a Science Organization
Wagman, K. B., Dearing, M. T., & Chetty, M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713827 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Multiple studies have found that generative AI tools increase productivity more for less skilled workers [2, 32], including for workers in consulting [9] and programming [6, 22, 36].”
- Authors
- Peng, S., Kalliamvakou, E., Cihon, P., & Demirer, M.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.06590
- OpenAlex
- W4320854981
- Semantic Scholar
- 15abedb29536d50afeeec739a25358255cbda3e8
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 50
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Keywords
- GitHub Copilot, generative AI, developer productivity, software development, JavaScript, treatment effect heterogeneity
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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