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?

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

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

a b i 1 x []

Is it legal to record a conversation with a therapist without their consent or the consent of the other person involved?

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.

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.

+ for

I tested Apple’s 11th-gen iPad for a week, and it’s still the best tablet - CNN

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

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”.

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

What are some ways to identify and avoid logical fallacies, such as straw man and red herring, in an argument?

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Ex-NBA coach P.J. Carlesimo crushes Knicks over Tom Thibodeau firing: ‘Their own worst enemy’ - New York Post

in structures, such as:

/ \ and ⁄ / | \