Nobody ever was. The big argument against needing safer languages was basically "but if you're an expert at C/C++/whatever, your code is pretty much safe". And these are usually the people who don't run extensive fuzzing and test suites.

it is also quite difficult to make a house safe if there are millions of people willing to breach it.

The offender side evolved, the defender needs to evolve too and that will be very, very expensive but much cheaper than not fixing the problems.

We knew we weren't, deep down. Some people did better than others at writing more secure of course. It was just about good enough in a world where – compared to today – it took much more time, skill and effort to find bad bugs.

The mistake is to think that the 'magical' LLMs don't write buggy code and that there isn't some tradeoff in using them. There are always tradeoffs in engineering.

later

And, security is always relative to the adversary and landscape, which has massively changed recently.