The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Sea Change in Software Development: Economic and Productivity Analysis of the AI-Powered Developer Lifecycle
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite the limitations of AI-generated code, academic and industry research show that developers prefer using AI tools in their daily programming tasks as it provides a helpful starting point [13, 40, 44] and can improve developer productivity by reducing the time spent on coding [48].”
From My Code Is Less Secure with Gen AI: Surveying Developers' Perceptions of the Impact of Code Generation Tools on Security (2025) · cites this paper as [13]
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
Kudriavtseva, A., Hotak, N. A., & Gadyatskaya, O. (2025) · Proceedings of the 40th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/3672608.3707778 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Dohmke, T., Iansiti, M., & Richards, G.
- Affiliations
- Meta (United States) (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2306.15033
- OpenAlex
- W4382490810
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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