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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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

Why do some mothers hate their daughters especially when they're the eldest?

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

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.

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”.

Who is the dumbest law enforcement officer you have ever encountered?

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

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 ⁄ / | \

Why am I sweating so much when I try to do anything?

a b i 1 x []

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

Do you believe that the US and Israel's preparations for all possibilities in response to potential Iranian attacks are sufficient to prevent a wider Middle East conflict?

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

in structures, such as: