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?

a b i 1 x []

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

+ for

How do so-called Religious/Christian people really think homosexuality is even a sin? That would be nonsense. In fact, LGBT people need love instead of contempt/hatred. The word Homosexual didn't appear until the 1850s.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

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.

Does the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom diagnose rare conditions? If so, does it provide treatment for them as well?

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

in structures, such as:

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”.

What does it mean when someone is pretending to be me?

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

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

What's your wildest & weirdest fantasy?

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.

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