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

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

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.

Country music star suffers onstage medical event, hospitalized - AL.com

a b i 1 x []

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

New Chemical Kills 95% of Termites and Can’t Harm Humans - SciTechDaily

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”.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

in structures, such as:

Why am I not losing weight despite eating 1500 calories daily? Male 24y 161kg 174cm and obese. My calorie tracking is on point, I mostly eat prepackaged food and occasionally cook for myself measuring only the raw ingredients, yes including the oil.

+ for

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.

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

Anxious-depressed individuals underestimate themselves even when they’re right - PsyPost

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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