generative AI

Developers spend roughly one-tenth of their workday writing code, yet most AI tooling targets that fraction. This paper asks what should be built for the rest. We surveyed 860 Microsoft developers to understand where they want AI support, and where they want it to stay out. Using a human-in-the-loop, multi-model council-based thematic analysis, we identify 22 AI systems that developers want built across five task categories. For each, we describe the problem it solves, what makes it hard to build, and the constraints developers place on its behavior. Our findings point to a growing right-shift burden in AI-assisted development: developers wanted systems that embed quality signals earlier in their workflow to keep pace with accelerating code generation, while enforcing explicit authority scoping, provenance, uncertainty signaling, and least-privilege access throughout. This tension reveals a pattern we call "bounded delegation": developers wanted AI to absorb the assembly work surrounding their craft, never the craft itself. That boundary tracks where they locate professional identity, suggesting that the value of AI tooling may lie as much in where and how precisely it stops as in what it does.

Generative AI is reshaping software work, yet we lack clear guidance on where developers most need support and how to design it responsibly. We report a large-scale, mixed-methods study of N=860 developers examining where, why, and how they seek or limit AI help across SE tasks. Using cognitive appraisal theory, we provide the first empirically validated mapping of developers' task appraisals to AI adoption patterns and Responsible AI (RAI) priorities. Appraisals predict AI openness and use, revealing distinct patterns: strong current use and demand for improvement in core work (e.g., coding, testing); high demand to reduce toil (e.g., documentation, operations); and clear limits for identity- and relationship-centric work (e.g., mentoring). RAI priorities vary by context: reliability and security for systems-facing tasks; transparency, alignment, and steerability to maintain control; and fairness and inclusiveness for human-facing work. Our results offer concrete, contextual guidance for delivering AI where it matters to developers and their work.

Automated text annotation is a compelling use case for generative large language models (LLMs) in social media research. Recent work suggests that LLMs can achieve strong performance on annotation tasks; however, these studies evaluate LLMs on a small number of tasks and likely suffer from contamination due to a reliance on public benchmark datasets. Here, we test a human-centered framework for responsibly evaluating artificial intelligence tools used in automated annotation. We use GPT-4 to replicate 27 annotation tasks across 11 password-protected datasets from recently published computational social science articles in high-impact journals. For each task, we compare GPT-4 annotations against human-annotated ground-truth labels and against annotations from separate supervised classification models fine-tuned on human-generated labels. Although the quality of LLM labels is generally high, we find significant variation in LLM performance across tasks, even within datasets. Our findings underscore the importance of a human-centered workflow and careful evaluation standards: Automated annotations significantly diverge from human judgment in numerous scenarios, despite various optimization strategies such as prompt tuning. Grounding automated annotation in validation labels generated by humans is essential for responsible evaluation.

As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become increasingly embedded in software development workflows, questions persist about their true impact on developer productivity and experience. This paper presents findings from a mixed-methods study examining how developers perceive AI's influence across the dimensions of the SPACE framework: Satisfaction, Performance, Activity, Collaboration and Efficiency. Drawing on survey responses from over 500 developers and qualitative insights from interviews and observational studies, we find that AI is broadly adopted and widely seen as enhancing productivity, particularly for routine tasks. However, the benefits vary, depending on task complexity, individual usage patterns, and team-level adoption. Developers report increased efficiency and satisfaction, with less evidence of impact on collaboration. Organizational support and peer learning play key roles in maximizing AI's value. These findings suggest that AI is augmenting developers rather than replacing them, and that effective integration depends as much on team culture and support structures as on the tools themselves. We conclude with practical recommendations for teams, organizations and researchers seeking to harness AI's potential in software engineering.

Generative AI models have shown impressive performance on many Natural Language Processing tasks such as language understanding, reasoning, and language generation. An important question being asked by the AI community today is about the capabilities and limits of these models, and it is clear that evaluating generative AI is very challenging. Most studies on generative LLMs have been restricted to English and it is unclear how capable these models are at understanding and generating text in other languages. We present the first comprehensive benchmarking of generative LLMs - MEGA, which evaluates models on standard NLP benchmarks, covering 16 NLP datasets across 70 typologically diverse languages. We compare the performance of generative LLMs including Chat-GPT and GPT-4 to State of the Art (SOTA) non-autoregressive models on these tasks to determine how well generative models perform compared to the previous generation of LLMs. We present a thorough analysis of the performance of models across languages and tasks and discuss challenges in improving the performance of generative LLMs on low-resource languages. We create a framework for evaluating generative LLMs in the multilingual setting and provide directions for future progress in the field.

AI-driven content creation has shown potential in film production. However, existing film generation systems struggle to implement cinematic principles and thus fail to generate professional-quality films, particularly lacking diverse camera language and cinematic rhythm. This results in templated visuals and unengaging narratives. To address this, we introduce FilMaster, an end-to-end AI system that integrates real-world cinematic principles for professional-grade film generation, yielding editable, industry-standard outputs. FilMaster is built on two key principles: (1) learning cinematography from extensive real-world film data and (2) emulating professional, audience-centric post-production workflows. Inspired by these principles, FilMaster incorporates two stages: a Reference-Guided Generation Stage which transforms user input to video clips, and a Generative Post-Production Stage which transforms raw footage into audiovisual outputs by orchestrating visual and auditory elements for cinematic rhythm. Our generation stage highlights a Multi-shot Synergized RAG Camera Language Design module to guide the AI in generating professional camera language by retrieving reference clips from a vast corpus of 440,000 film clips. Our post-production stage emulates professional workflows by designing an Audience-Centric Cinematic Rhythm Control module, including Rough Cut and Fine Cut processes informed by simulated audience feedback, for effective integration of audiovisual elements to achieve engaging content. The system is empowered by generative AI models like (M)LLMs and video generation models. Furthermore, we introduce FilmEval, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating AI-generated films. Extensive experiments show FilMaster's superior performance in camera language design and cinematic rhythm control, advancing generative AI in professional filmmaking.