What are your thoughts on a future where code is represented as a structured model, rather than text? Do you think that AI-powered coding assistants benefit from that?

i.e. “operator like things” at the nodes …

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

First, it’s worth noting that the “syntax recognition” phase of most compilers already does build a “structured model”, often in what used to be called a “canonical form” (an example of this might be a “pseudo-function tree” where every elementary process description is put into the same form — so both “a + b” and “for i := 1 to x do […]” are rendered as

What are the common formulas for improvising ornaments in bel canto singing?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

+ for

It’s important to realize that “modern “AI” doesn’t understand human level meanings any better today (in many cases: worse!). So it is not going to be able to serve as much of a helper in a general coding assistant.

How can I get rid of the fake girls on social media that are claiming to be hookups? Is there a way to shuffle through them and the real women that actually want to talk?

Most coding assistants — with or without “modern “AI” — also do reasoning and manipulation of structures.

Another canonical form could be Lisp S-expressions, etc.

Long ago in the 50s this was even thought of as a kind of “AI” and this association persisted into the 60s. Several Turing Awards were given for progress on this kind of “machine reasoning”.

Gigi Hadid, Bradley Cooper, Brad Pitt, and Ines de Ramon’s New York Date Night Had a Dress Code - Vogue

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

a b i 1 x []

These structures are made precisely to allow programs to “reason” about some parts of lower level meaning, and in many cases to rearrange the structure to preserve meaning but to make the eventual code that is generated more efficient.

Weight loss connected to nerve cells in the brain, study finds - The Brighter Side of News

in structures, such as:

A slogan that might help you get past the current fads is: