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?

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

in structures, such as:

a b i 1 x []

What is something you have to share?

+ for

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”.

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

Gaza-bound aid boat with Greta Thunberg on board arrives in Israel after its seizure - PBS

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.

How should one handle a situation where they suspect their partner of cheating, but their partner denies it and claims it is all in their head?

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

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

Astronomers discover 15 new giant radio galaxies — the largest single objects in the universe - Space

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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