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, […])

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 ⁄ / | \

Is there a specific time frame for therapists to tell their clients they are wrong?

a b i 1 x []

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

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.

"Brokeback Mountain" broke hearts on the big screen, and it's back to do it again - Salon.com

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

in structures, such as:

+ for

Halo: Edge of Dawn | Cover Reveal | Halo - Official Site (en) - Halo Waypoint

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

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Is it true or false that Andrew Tate announced that he is running for prime minister of the UK under a new political party called 'BRUV' or something like that?

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

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.