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 …

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

+ for

I'm pretty sure that my dog is transgender, how would I go about transitioning it?

a b i 1 x []

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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”.

Bitcoin becoming 'more central’ to portfolios as its volatility cools, Coatue's Philippe Laffont says - CNBC

in structures, such as:

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

What is your analysis of Walter White from Breaking Bad?

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.

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.

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

This crab emits light from its forehead, and scientists have tried to figure out why. - Farmingdale Observer

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