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?

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

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

Why do you think Democrat favorability ratings are so low?

a b i 1 x []

in structures, such as:

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

Ray Dalio: ‘We should be afraid of the bond market’ - CNN

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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.

When a dog smells another dog’s poo or wee, do they then remember that scent for when they smell it again, or even further know which dog they are smelling if they know the dog?

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

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”.

+ for

Why does my intimate area “sweat” and smell so much? I almost have to have a shower everyday. How do I get rid of this?

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.

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