Wouldn't that need an awful lot of training data? And different people might have very approaches to laying out a graph, so all that training data would need to come from one person, wouldn't it?
Oh, for sure! It would need to be trained on the 'default' way of doing things, just like a linter has a default config. THEN it would need to train on how you code (pin ordering, reroute node layouts, loop layouts, etc), the entire time you work with it. And, of course, in order to train, you would need to be able to tell it "hey, don't do that; I know I did it here but don't mimic that" as well as "mimic this, every single time. Don't use the defaults". Those explicit commands are extremely important for handling the edge casing (similar to newline vs inline brace openings).
But, honestly, that kind of thing is the only valuable future for AI that I see, as a creative. I don't need it to write my code for me, but I could sure as hell use it to handle all the tedious bullshit that we've cobbled together as far as tooling, CI, formatting and any other "had to do it this way to make machines understand it" half-measure we've had to take in the past century. The AIs that we see, now, which learn from a huge dataset and then stay mostly inert until the next big update are more toy-like in my figuring. They are standards to measure against and proofs of all kinds of very interesting and useful concepts. But the lasting/useful AIs will be the ones that train alongside your work and ONLY on your work (or, let's face it, the work done in your company that will be shared amongst all corporate employees so that all work can be done more efficiently) in order to provide you with what you would be trying to do anyway.
