Conversational AI agents are commonly applied within single-user, turn-taking scenarios. The interaction mechanics of these scenarios are trivial: when the user enters a message, the AI agent produces a response. However, the interaction dynamics are more complex within group settings. How should an agent behave in these settings? We report on two experiments aimed at uncovering users' experiences of an AI agent's participation within a group, in the context of group ideation (brainstorming). In the first study, participants benefited from and preferred having the AI agent in the group, but participants disliked when the agent seemed to dominate the conversation and they desired various controls over its interactive behaviors. In the second study, we created functional controls over the agent's behavior, operable by group members, to validate their utility and probe for additional requirements. Integrating our findings across both studies, we developed a taxonomy of controls for when, what, and where a conversational AI agent in a group should respond, who can control its behavior, and how those controls are specified and implemented. Our taxonomy is intended to aid AI creators to think through important considerations in the design of mixed-initiative conversational agents.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied in software engineering to perform tasks such as translating code between programming languages, generating code from natural language, and autocompleting code as it is being written. When used within development tools, these systems typically treat each model invocation independently from all previous invocations, and only a specific limited functionality is exposed within the user interface. This approach to user interaction misses an opportunity for users to more deeply engage with the model by having the context of their previous interactions, as well as the context of their code, inform the model’s responses. We developed a prototype system – the Programmer’s Assistant – in order to explore the utility of conversational interactions grounded in code, as well as software engineers’ receptiveness to the idea of conversing with, rather than invoking, a code-fluent LLM. Through an evaluation with 42 participants with varied levels of programming experience, we found that our system was capable of conducting extended, multi-turn discussions, and that it enabled additional knowledge and capabilities beyond code generation to emerge from the LLM. Despite skeptical initial expectations for conversational programming assistance, participants were impressed by the breadth of the assistant’s capabilities, the quality of its responses, and its potential for improving their productivity. Our work demonstrates the unique potential of conversational interactions with LLMs for co-creative processes like software development.

As artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms become increasingly prevalent in society, multiple stakeholders are calling for these algorithms to provide explanations. At the same time, these stakeholders, whether they be affected citizens, government regulators, domain experts, or system developers, have different explanation needs. To address these needs, in 2019, we created AI Explainability 360, an open source software toolkit featuring ten diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. This paper examines the impact of the toolkit with several case studies, statistics, and community feedback. The different ways in which users have experienced AI Explainability 360 have resulted in multiple types of impact and improvements in multiple metrics, highlighted by the adoption of the toolkit by the independent LF AI & Data Foundation. The paper also describes the flexible design of the toolkit, examples of its use, and the significant educational material and documentation available to its users.

What does it mean for a generative AI model to be explainable? The emergent discipline of explainable AI (XAI) has made great strides in helping people understand discriminative models. Less attention has been paid to generative models that produce artifacts, rather than decisions, as output. Meanwhile, generative AI (GenAI) technologies are maturing and being applied to application domains such as software engineering. Using scenario-based design and question-driven XAI design approaches, we explore users’ explainability needs for GenAI in three software engineering use cases: natural language to code, code translation, and code auto-completion. We conducted 9 workshops with 43 software engineers in which real examples from state-of-the-art generative AI models were used to elicit users’ explainability needs. Drawing from prior work, we also propose 4 types of XAI features for GenAI for code and gathered additional design ideas from participants. Our work explores explainability needs for GenAI for code and demonstrates how human-centered approaches can drive the technical development of XAI in novel domains.

Generative machine learning models have recently been applied to source code, for use cases including translating code between programming languages, creating documentation from code, and auto-completing methods. Yet, state-of-the-art models often produce code that is erroneous or incomplete. In a controlled study with 32 software engineers, we examined whether such imperfect outputs are helpful in the context of Java-to-Python code translation. When aided by the outputs of a code translation model, participants produced code with fewer errors than when working alone. We also examined how the quality and quantity of AI translations affected the work process and quality of outcomes, and observed that providing multiple translations had a larger impact on the translation process than varying the quality of provided translations. Our results tell a complex, nuanced story about the benefits of generative code models and the challenges software engineers face when working with their outputs. Our work motivates the need for intelligent user interfaces that help software engineers effectively work with generative code models in order to understand and evaluate their outputs and achieve superior outcomes to working alone.

Generative models have become adept at producing artifacts such as images, videos, and prose at human-like levels of proficiency. New generative techniques, such as unsupervised neural machine translation (NMT), have recently been applied to the task of generating source code, translating it from one programming language to another. The artifacts produced in this way may contain imperfections, such as compilation or logical errors. We examine the extent to which software engineers would tolerate such imperfections and explore ways to aid the detection and correction of those errors. Using a design scenario approach, we interviewed 11 software engineers to understand their reactions to the use of an NMT model in the context of application modernization, focusing on the task of translating source code from one language to another. Our three-stage scenario sparked discussions about the utility and desirability of working with an imperfect AI system, how acceptance of that system’s outputs would be established, and future opportunities for generative AI in application modernization. Our study highlights how UI features such as confidence highlighting and alternate translations help software engineers work with and better understand generative NMT models.

As artificial intelligence algorithms make further inroads in high-stakes societal applications, there are increasing calls from multiple stakeholders for these algorithms to explain their outputs. To make matters more challenging, different personas of consumers of explanations have different requirements for explanations. Toward addressing these needs, we introduce AI Explainability 360, an open-source Python toolkit featuring ten diverse and state-of-the-art explainability methods and two evaluation metrics. Equally important, we provide a taxonomy to help entities requiring explanations to navigate the space of interpretation and explanation methods, not only those in the toolkit but also in the broader literature on explainability. For data scientists and other users of the toolkit, we have implemented an extensible software architecture that organizes methods according to their place in the AI modeling pipeline. The toolkit is not only the software, but also guidance material, tutorials, and an interactive web demo to introduce AI explainability to different audiences. Together, our toolkit and taxonomy can help identify gaps where more explainability methods are needed and provide a platform to incorporate them as they are developed.

No abstract available.

Software development environments are becoming progressively more advanced in their support for construction of large software applications.However, it is still tedious and time consuming for programmers to build even simple applications.This paper describes an exploratory study which identifies some common problems experienced by programmers working with a range of currently available tools.Eight professional programmers were observed while each built the same simple application using a different !software development environment.Problems encountered during the authoring process were noted, Four categories of common problems emerged.Design principles implied by these categories are suggested.

Although computer tools for 3-D design applications are now widely available for use on personal computers, they are unnecessarily difficult to use. Conventions for establishing and manipulating views of 3-D objects require engineering-oriented dialogues that are foreign to most users. This paper describes the iterative design and testing of a new mechanism for moving 3-D objects with a mouse-controlled cursor in a space planning application prototype. Emphasis was placed on developing a design which would make 3-D interaction more intuitive by preserving users' experiences with moving objects in the real, physical world. Results of an informal user test of the current interface prototype are presented and implications for the development of a more general direct manipulation mechanism are discussed.