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?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

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

Ex-NASCAR driver Danica Patrick weighs in on Riley Gaines and Simone Biles' social media feud over trans athletes - New York Post

in structures, such as:

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

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

With long courtship behind him, Aaron Rodgers learning the Steelers ropes on 'first day of school' - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

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”.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

a b i 1 x []

Elliotte Friedman floats Capitals as potential free-agency suitor for Brad Marchand after veteran winger stars in Stanley Cup run with Panthers - RMNB

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

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.

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.

Why cant a narcissist admit when they are wrong?

+ for

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!