> Why do you assume I assume it's doable? :P

Because you say we need to figure out techniques to do it. If it's not possible, then there are no techniques to do it. Since you want the techniques, I assume you assume that they exist.

> 1. Every time I've confidently though "AI will never be able to do X" in the last year, I've later been proven wrong, so I'm a bit wary to assume that again without strong reasons.

That's evidence that you shouldn't assume something is impossible. I'm not suggesting that, either.

> 2. I see blog posts by some of the most AI-forward people that seems to imply some people are already managing large codebases without human review of raw code. Maybe they're full of crap - there are certainly plenty of over-credulous bs artists in the AI space - but maybe they're not.

Do you have any idea whether this works well though?

> 3. The returns on figuring this out are so incredibly high that, if it's possible, people will figure it out.

Ok. But again, that's a big if there.

The returns on breaking a popular cryptographic algorithm are also huge, but that's not an indication that it's possible, or that it's impossible for that matter.

I'm baffled why people think that "it would be great if..." has any bearing on the chances that the thing that follows is true.