PreprintCited by 10Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesOpen Source Software Innovations

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Sea Change in Software Development: Economic and Productivity Analysis of the AI-Powered Developer Lifecycle

Open access

Abstract

This study examines the impact of GitHub Copilot on a large sample of Copilot users (n=934,533). The analysis shows that users on average accept nearly 30% of the suggested code, leading to increased productivity. Furthermore, our research demonstrates that the acceptance rate rises over time and is particularly high among less experienced developers, providing them with substantial benefits. Additionally, our estimations indicate that the adoption of generative AI productivity tools could potentially contribute to a $1.5 trillion increase in global GDP by 2030. Moreover, our investigation sheds light on the diverse contributors in the generative AI landscape, including major technology companies, startups, academia, and individual developers. The findings suggest that the driving force behind generative AI software innovation lies within the open-source ecosystem, particularly in the United States. Remarkably, a majority of repositories on GitHub are led by individual developers. As more developers embrace these tools and acquire proficiency in the art of prompting with generative AI, it becomes evident that this novel approach to software development has forged a unique inextricable link between humans and artificial intelligence. This symbiotic relationship has the potential to shape the construction of the world's software for future generations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.15033

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dohmke, T., Iansiti, M., & Richards, G.
Affiliations
  • Meta (United States) (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
OpenAlex
W4382490810
Cited by
10
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Styrelsen för Internationellt Utvecklingssamarbete
  • Technische Universität Berlin
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 in software development, developer productivity, developer experience, economic impact of AI, open source ecosystem, prompting

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