I'm afraid, you would sooner see safe code in assembler with the help of ai than in rust. You can argue that ai can be used to enhance rust, but at this point why bother if ai will be writing code by your instructions.
Some people haven't yet understood that the transition into AI is similar to how optimising compilers mostly replaced Assembly programming.
While not yet there, eventually AI based code generation will be good enough to generate native code directly, without going through existing languages code generation.
So while we might get the equivalent of a -S compiler switch, to dump the AI compiler decisions and fine tune the prompts, that isn't something everyday dev will be bothering with.
Like I mentioned - belief in Rust is a religion and I got a proof in those negative votes.
I don't think that people like you understand what are appliances for AI - it is not about writing or optimizing code, but writing language from the scrap if needed. And my remark was that Rust will hit the wall where it will need to go fully AI, because developers simply can't fullfill the promise of safe code by default as it would require inhuman testing to even get near that promised result. Also Rust is meant for humans - which loses any edge if switch is happening towards descriptive and not even programming language that developers will use. Rust here simply has no edge at all as any programming language can be improved with memory safety in mind.
While not yet there, eventually AI based code generation will be good enough to generate native code directly, without going through existing languages code generation.
So while we might get the equivalent of a -S compiler switch, to dump the AI compiler decisions and fine tune the prompts, that isn't something everyday dev will be bothering with.