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.

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.

What is the most overrated pleasure? Why?

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

a b i 1 x []

+ for

What are the most common misconceptions people have about demon summoning?

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.

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”.

Can you show your wet and dripping pussy?

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

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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

When the mind leaves the body - scientists investigate the incredible phenomenon of OBEs - Earth.com

in structures, such as:

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