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

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

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

New paper pushes back on Apple’s LLM ‘reasoning collapse’ study - 9to5Mac

a b i 1 x []

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

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.

Why do atheists love to preach against Abrahamic religions and mock God? Even if they do not fear the eternal fire of hell, pious Muslims will certainly not leave them alone and will take brutal revenge until they surrender and repent of their sins.

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

in structures, such as:

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

mRNA, once lauded as a scientific marvel, is now a government target - statnews.com

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.

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

What transforms the philosophical intellect?

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”.

/ \ and ⁄ / | \