Interviews with 22 developers show that balancing control over LLMs determines whether these tools boost or erode software work; excessive reliance risks skill atrophy while underuse forfeits productivity gains. The paper offers a preliminary 'reliance–control' framework to guide tool design, training and policy.

Main Finding

The paper proposes a preliminary two-dimensional "reliance–control" framework for AI in software engineering (SE). It characterises degrees of (a) control developers hold over AI tools (self-control → losing control) and (b) reliance developers place on AI (self-reliance → full automation). The authors argue the optimal outcome (“sweet spot”) is balanced control combined with appropriate reliance, and they illustrate how different interaction modes (e.g., IDE-integrated agents vs. conversational chatbots) map to different positions in this space. They use interview evidence to show that tool design and organizational choices influence whether teams gain productivity or risk skill atrophy, reduced team communication, and bugs/vulnerabilities from overreliance.

Key Points

• Reliance and control are related but distinct dimensions. Appropriate reliance is not just trusting accurate outputs but choosing when and how much to rely across tasks.
• Degrees of control (Table 1): self-control, taking control, balanced control, handing over control, losing control.
• Degrees of reliance (Table 2): self-reliance, reliance on colleagues, appropriate reliance, overreliance, full automation.
• The “sweet spot” is balanced control + appropriate reliance (e.g., using LLMs for test-driven development while supervising outputs).
• Risk scenarios: handing over control + overreliance (prototype generation without checks), losing control + full automation (multi-file agent changes introducing vulnerabilities).
• Empirical background: 22 semi-structured interviews with practitioners across regions; examples reference tools and interaction modes (ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, GitHub Copilot, agent modes).
• Prior empirical findings cited: incidents of operational harm (e.g., Replit-agent deleting live data), cognitive/behavioral impacts (Kosmyna et al.’s EEG study showing neural/behavioral underperformance after LLM use), and mixed effectiveness of interventions (Bo et al. and Collins et al. on reliance interventions).
• Practical recommendations include aligning tool selection with team expertise, documenting norms about when automation is acceptable, and curricular choices to avoid premature automation for novices.

Data & Methods

• Primary data: twenty-two semi-structured interviews with software developers collected in three rounds (Oct 2024–Sep 2025) across Asia, Europe, North America, South America, and Oceania.
• Participants completed a pre-interview questionnaire covering demographics and AI attitudes.
• Analysis approach: socio-technical grounded theory (STGT) — open coding, constant comparison, memoing. First author led coding with early collaborative sessions with a grounded-theory specialist.
• Supplementary materials (protocol, interview guide, coding examples, memos) are provided by the authors.
• Framework construction: emergent coding revealed reliance and control as core concepts; authors mapped observed developer practices and tool interaction types to the two dimensions and illustrated practical examples.
• External grounding: framework linked to prior taxonomies of developer–AI interaction types (Treude & Gerosa) to show how interaction modes cluster by control/reliance.

Implications for AI Economics

• Labor market and productivity trade-offs
  • Short-run productivity gains may be real (reduced effort, faster prototyping), but long-run human capital depreciation (skill atrophy, reduced critical thinking) poses a risk to worker productivity and employability. Economists should model both immediate output gains and negative dynamic effects on skills.
  • Task-level complementarity vs. substitution: interaction modes that preserve developer control (balanced control) imply complementarity (AI + human), whereas agent-driven, multi-file automation pushes toward substitution and potential job-task reallocation.
• Firm-level adoption and organizational choices
  • Tool selection and governance (which interaction mode to deploy) are strategic decisions with measurable returns and risks. Firms may optimally choose different automation levels depending on workforce skill composition, product criticality, and regulatory exposure.
  • Team structures and communication externalities: reduced peer discussion (observed in practice) can lower overall team knowledge diffusion and raise coordination costs—important for models of team productivity.
• Human capital and education policy
  • Curriculum design matters: restricting certain AI features early in training may preserve foundational skills. Economists and policymakers should assess the social returns to investing in retraining and in-place checks (code review, TDD practices).
• Measurement and empirical strategy suggestions
  • Key variables to measure: reliance level, control mode, task criticality, error rates in AI outputs, developer skill trajectories (short- and long-run), team communication frequency/quality, incidence of costly failures (security/availability).
  • Suggested empirical designs: longitudinal panel studies of developers (to capture skill dynamics), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interaction modes (e.g., agent mode vs. conversational assist) to estimate causal impacts on productivity and skill retention, within-subjects experiments for cognitive outcomes (replicating/expanding EEG and behavioral measures).
  • Natural experiments / difference-in-differences: exploit staggered firm-level rollouts of agent-mode tools or policy changes restricting certain AI features.
• Policy, liability, and regulation
  • Externalities from overreliance (e.g., system failures, security breaches) create regulatory and insurance angles. Regulators may mandate logging, human-in-the-loop requirements for critical systems, or certification standards for AI-driven code changes.
  • Incentive design: firms may need to internalize the long-term cost of skill erosion (through training subsidies, enforced review workflows, or UX friction where appropriate).
• Research agenda for AI economists
  • Quantify the threshold where agent automation becomes net welfare-improving vs. welfare-reducing when accounting for skill depreciation and externalities.
  • Model firm decisions on tool adoption as a dynamic optimization (short-run gains vs. long-run human capital loss).
  • Estimate wage and labor demand impacts by occupation and experience level as agent modes diffuse.
  • Evaluate policy levers (e.g., mandated human oversight, certification, liability rules) via calibrated models or field experiments.
  • Test design interventions (frictions, uncertainty indicators, multi-model cross-check prompts) not just for immediate calibration of reliance but for their long-run impact on skills and productivity.

Practical quick suggestions for economists planning empirical work - Collect microdata at developer level: tool logs (interaction mode, frequency), code quality metrics, review churn, and career progression. - Pair controlled lab experiments (productivity, cognitive load) with field data (firm rollouts) for external validity. - Use Treude & Gerosa’s interaction taxonomy and this reliance–control mapping as a coding scheme to classify tool–task interactions in datasets.

Concluding note This framework provides a parsimonious way to map interaction modes and organizational choices to economic outcomes (productivity, skill formation, risk). It suggests that policies and firm strategies that preserve “balanced control” while achieving “appropriate reliance” may maximize durable gains from AI — a hypothesis well-suited for empirical testing by AI economists.