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?

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

+ 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.

What do you think of casting Emma Watson as the next James Bond?

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

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

Why do entitled people demand that I pick up after my doggo when he goes to the bathroom? Do they not know that doggy doo decomposes & feeds the plants?

a b i 1 x []

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”.

A former police chief who escaped from an Arkansas prison is captured - NPR

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.

in structures, such as:

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

What do people aim for when they meditate, and how do they do it properly?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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