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?

+ for

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

a b i 1 x []

Can trans people tell me what the criteria for a woman is excluding self identification (facts do not rely on self belief)?

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

in structures, such as:

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

Fastest Payout Online Casino: Lucky Creek Best of Instant Withdrawal Casinos - ACCESS Newswire

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

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.

Weird-shaped notebooks make me want to write again - The Verge

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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.

Smoking Rates by Country and Gender in 2025 - Visual Capitalist

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

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”.