If you are relying on anything alone you are a fool. If you are not using the above as part of your solution you are a fool.
Each of the above will consistently find certain types of errors. The above tools do not "let their mind wonder", get bored, or any of the other things that happen to humans.
When you as a human find an error it is worth asking if you can modify one of the above tools to find that class of errors so that you can be sure all cases were caught. Unfortunately most of the time we cannot yet (generally because the number of false positives is too high - I'm hoping for research to improve this)
I agree with everything you've said. Automation and tooling where it excels, humans where necessary and for oversight.
My comment was largely around the fact that parent comment seemed to say "software bugs have been solved by tools, but design problems need humans". I think design/backdoor/crypto bugs may be more (or entirely) depending on manual audit, but it's dangerous to suggest software bugs can be fully automated away.
Perhaps the parent comment was suggesting we should look to more software solutions to backdoor/design flaws? that's an interesting thought exercise.
Each of the above will consistently find certain types of errors. The above tools do not "let their mind wonder", get bored, or any of the other things that happen to humans.
When you as a human find an error it is worth asking if you can modify one of the above tools to find that class of errors so that you can be sure all cases were caught. Unfortunately most of the time we cannot yet (generally because the number of false positives is too high - I'm hoping for research to improve this)