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, […])

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

a b i 1 x []

How should one handle an uninvited guest at a small, intimate wedding ceremony? Is it appropriate to ask them not to attend?

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.

+ for

ESA studying impacts of proposed NASA budget cuts - SpaceNews

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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”.

in structures, such as:

Universal embezzlers naturally emerge in critical fermion systems, study finds - Phys.org

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

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

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.

Eyeglasses With Built-In Hearing Aids: This Just Makes Sense - WSJ

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.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \