Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

User Misconceptions of LLM-Based Conversational Programming Assistants.

  • Gabrielle O'Brien
    ,
  • Antonio Pedro Santos Alves
    ,
  • Sebastian Baltes
    ,
  • Grischa Liebel
    ,
  • ,
  • Marcos Kalinowski
Research Output:
Other contribution
Other contribution

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Other contribution
Other contribution

Original language

English

Publication milestones

  • Published - 29/10/2025

Publication status

Published - 29/10/2025

Place of publication

New York

Volume

abs/2510.25662

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery, United States

Abstract

Programming assistants powered by large language models (LLMs) have become widely available, with conversational assistants like ChatGPT proving particularly accessible to less experienced programmers. However, the varied capabilities of these tools across model versions and the mixed availability of extensions that enable web search, code execution, or retrieval-augmented generation create opportunities for user misconceptions about what systems can and cannot do. Such misconceptions may lead to over-reliance, unproductive practices, or insufficient quality control in LLM-assisted programming. Here, we aim to characterize misconceptions that users of conversational LLM-based assistants may have in programming contexts. Using a two-phase approach, we first brainstorm and catalog user misconceptions that may occur, and then conduct a qualitative analysis to examine whether these conceptual issues surface in naturalistic Python-programming conversations with an LLM-based chatbot drawn from an openly available dataset. Indeed, we see evidence that some users have misplaced expectations about the availability of LLM-based chatbot features like web access, code execution, or non-text output generation. We also see potential evidence for deeper conceptual issues around the scope of information required to debug, validate, and optimize programs. Our findings reinforce the need for designing LLM-based tools that more clearly communicate their programming capabilities to users.