Exactly, as I don’t expect QA done by something that can’t think or feel to know what actually needs to be fixed

That is a very small part of QA's responsibility. Mostly it is about testing and identifying bugs that get triaged by management. The person running the tests is NOT responsible for deciding what can and can't ship.

And, in that regard... this is actually a REALLY good use of "AI" (not so much generative). Imagine something like the old "A star algorithm plays mario" where it is about finding different paths to accomplish the same goal (e.g. a quest) and immediately having a lot of exactly what steps led to the anomaly for the purposes of building a reproducer.

Which actually DOES feel like a really good use case.... at the cost of massive computational costs (so.. "AI").

That said: it also has all of the usual labor implications. But from a purely technical "make the best games" standpoint? Managers overseeing a rack that is running through the games 24/7 for bugs that they can then review and prioritize seems like a REALLY good move.

AI is a hallucination engine

Whiplashed by one of the works by great bassist and producer Bill Laswell being inadvertently mentioned in discussion of AI.

The thing about QA is the work is truly endless.

If they can do their work more efficiently, they don't get laid off.

It just means a better % of edge cases can get covered, even if you made QAs operate at 100x efficiency, they'd still have edge cases not getting covered.

They’re just gonna lay them off.

And hire other people with the excess budget. Hell, depending on how badly these systems are implemented, you can end up with more staff supporting the testing system than you had doing the testing.