User Misconceptions of LLM-Based Conversational Programming Assistants.
- Gabrielle O'Brien,
- Antonio Pedro Santos Alves,
- Sebastian Baltes,
- Grischa Liebel,
- ,
- Marcos Kalinowski
- University of Michigan,
- Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro,
- Heidelberg University,
- Reykjavík University,
- ,
Research Output:
Other contribution
Other contribution
Open access
Publication Information
Output type
Research Output:
Other contribution
Other contribution
Original language
EnglishPublication milestones
- Published - 29/10/2025
Publication status
Published - 29/10/2025
Place of publication
New YorkVolume
abs/2510.25662Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery, United StatesAbstract
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.
