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?

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

in structures, such as:

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

Recursion lays off 20% of staff in wake of pipeline cutbacks - Fierce Biotech

+ for

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

Black holes don’t behave as we thought, study finds - The Brighter Side of News

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

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”.

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.

How do you fight the push and pull (manipulation) tactic if you want to win him?

a b i 1 x []

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.

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

The Gears of War Reloaded beta is here, what you need to know and how to play - Windows Central

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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