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?

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

in structures, such as:

Do you have any attributes quirks sensitivities abilities etc that you've come to learn most people don't experience? E.g. dream with subtext or experience de ja vu regularly or know you experience life very differently from those around you etc?

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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.

Why do men think I’m easy just by looking at me?

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

+ for

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

Stars goalie Jake Oettinger addresses benching by coach Pete DeBoer: ‘It’s embarrassing’ - Dallas News

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.

a b i 1 x []

Why has Schrödinger's Cat, the experiment, not actually been performed?

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

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”.