Trust, transparency, and adoption in generative AI for software engineering: Insights from Twitter discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: The rise of AI-driven coding assistants, such as GitHub Copilot and ChatGPT, is transforming software development practices. Despite their growing impact, informal user feedback on these tools is often neglected. Objective: This study aims to analyze Twitter/X conversations to understand user opinions on the benefits, challenges, and barriers associated with Code Generation Tools (CGTs) in software engineering. By incorporating diverse perspectives from developers, hobbyists, students, and critics, the research provides a comprehensive view of public sentiment. Methods: We employed a hybrid approach using BERTopic and open coding to collect and analyze data from approximately 90,000 tweets. The focus was on identifying themes and sentiments related to various CGTs. The study sought to determine the most frequently discussed topics and their related sentiment, followed by highlighting the reoccurring feedback or criticisms that could influence generative AI (GenAI) adoption in software engineering. Results: Our analysis identified several significant themes, including productivity enhancements, shifts in developer practices, regulatory uncertainty, and a demand for neutral GenAI content. While some users praised the efficiency benefits of CGTs, others raised concerns regarding intellectual property, transparency, and potential biases. Conclusion: The findings highlight that addressing issues of trust, accountability, and legal clarity is essential for the successful integration of CGTs in software development. These insights underscore the need for ongoing dialogue and refinement of CGTs to better align with user expectations and mitigate concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".