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?

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

in structures, such as:

+ for

Why can't ugly women date hot guys? I know a woman who wants a hot BF but people would just laugh at her and ask her "what can you bring to the table for him?", isn't that messed up?

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.

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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.

Do Republicans realize that the power of the people is invested in 'representative government'? If so, why did they elect a pathological liar?

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

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 the downsides of OpenAI's chain-of-thought approach in the o1 model?

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

a b i 1 x []

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

Why is Hinduism not polytheistic?

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

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