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?

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”.

+ for

Grandfather's simple changes reversed pre-diabetes diagnosis that left him 'petrified' - AOL.com

/ \ and ⁄ / | \

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

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.

Why are people so terrified or bothered that a person has original creative ideas, hobbies or unique interests?

in structures, such as:

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 …

A child had measles at Mall of America, concerning state health officials who don’t know source - Star Tribune

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

a b i 1 x []

NOT DATA … BUT MEANING!

Chairman Comer Subpoenas Dr. O’Connor Over Cover-Up Of Biden’s Mental Decline - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability - (.gov)

plus(a, b) for(i, 1, x, […])

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