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!

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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”.

I have been married for 34 years, and I found out my wife lied, and cheated a lot back before we got married. Does she not change, or is it possible she is still a cheater?

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

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

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.

What are some effective ways to introduce a fantasy world to your main character without information dumping?

in structures, such as:

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

Whole-body movement play shows promise for children with autism - PsyPost

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

+ 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

CBO estimates Trump's bill could add $2.4T to deficit, leave 11 million without health insurance - ABC News

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.

a b i 1 x []