It is argued that AI coding assistants should not only be evaluated by the code they generate, but also by how they mediate the transfer of that code into software artifacts, and soft barriers are proposed as one class of handoff-aware mechanisms.
Abstract
Copying a function from a chat window into an editor takes less than a second. For many uses of AI coding tools, that speed is the point; in settings such as programming education, code review, and security-sensitive development, it can also be the problem. This paper frames copy-paste as an \emph{AI code handoff problem}: the moment model-generated text crosses from a conversational context into executable or committed software is a design boundary that current tools leave largely unmanaged. We argue that AI coding assistants should not only be evaluated by the code they generate, but also by how they mediate the transfer of that code into software artifacts. We propose \emph{soft barriers} as one class of handoff-aware mechanisms. Soft barriers preserve access to AI assistance while making unexamined transfer less frictionless. As an initial technical probe, we instantiate this idea using Unicode output perturbations that preserve visual readability but disrupt naive copy-paste execution. We introduce Copy-Paste Resistance (CPR), the fraction of functionally correct clean solutions that become syntactically invalid after perturbation. Across HumanEval and MBPP with four LLMs and four perturbation families, we find that output-level barriers can achieve high copy-paste resistance, but their effectiveness is highly model- and task-dependent. An exploratory pilot with 18 participants provides early evidence that soft barriers can shift users from direct transfer toward editing and reconstruction. We do not present Unicode perturbations as a deployment-ready solution; rather, we use them as a minimal probe for a broader research agenda on practical, transparent, and policy-aware AI code handoff.
There appears to be two distinct camps gathering steam as AI coding agents get increasingly adept at generating software on the basis of some light natural language specifications: those who want to maximally remove the ‘error-prone’ sentient bags of mostly water at the keyboard and those who stubbornly assert their ow...
This work analyzes three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation.
This work constructs an evaluation framework from 400 BigCodeBench problems by injecting controlled AST-level corruptions into reference solutions, giving each repair task a known minimal patch, and positions edit fidelity as a distinct axis of code-repair quality and shows that it can be measured and learned.
AI-assisted programming raises distinct questions about who produces code, who feels ownership of it, and who is responsible when it fails. This research note examines these distinctions through a hypothetical enrollment failure and a selective reading of the literature. Identifying the producer of a defective expressi...
Observations suggest that visible machine participation shifts the performer from direct creation toward curation, while preserving the per-formative “liveness” of live coding.
Sven Hollowell, P. Bennett, Paul Marshall· 0 citations
Generative artificial intelligence is reshaping programming education, yet its effects on skill development depend partly on how learners interact with artificial intelligence-supported systems. This study introduces the Artificial Intelligence-Scaffolding Interaction Framework, which conceptualizes constrained, questi...
M. Yenidogan, Zeynep Cömert, Duygu Çakır· IEEE Access· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.