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?

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

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

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.

AI-Focused Apple Music Reboot Said to Be in the Works - MacRumors

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

+ for

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

Can you write a letter to your first love without mentioning his/her name?

in structures, such as:

a b i 1 x []

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

What's your take on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? How has it affected you?

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”.

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.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

Braves Place Chris Sale On 15-Day IL With Ribcage Fracture - MLB Trade Rumors

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

/ \ and ⁄ / | \