I'm cautious but a little curious about this one, because QA could actually be a very good target for AIs to work with.

1. It might not kill jobs. Right now, engineers finish a task and the limited number of QA engineers can't possibly test it enough before release. That game-breaking bug you found in a game? I'm sure some QA had it in their plan to test every level for those bugs, and yet they just didn't have enough time - and the studio couldn't justify hiring 20 more QA squads. Even if they do upscale AI testing, they'll need knowledgable QA workers to guide them.
2. This is often extremely rote, repetitive work. It's exactly the type of work The Oatmeal said is great for AIs. One person is tuning the balance on the Ether Drive attack, and gives it an extra 40% blarf damage. He tries it, sees it works fine, and eagerly skips past the part of the test plan to verify that all cutscenes are working and unaffected to push it in. An AI will try it out, and find: Actually, since an NPC uses an Ether Drive in a late-game cutscene, this breaks the whole game!
3. Even going past existing plans, QA can likely find MORE work for AIs to do that they normally wouldn't bother with. Think about the current complexity of game dev that leads to the current trope of releasing games half-finished to eventually get patched. It won't help patch games, but it'll at least help give devs an up-to-date list of issues.

That said, those talking about human creativity and player expectations are still correct. An AI can report a problem with feedback that a human can say "No, that looks fine. Override that report." It will also be good to do occasional manual tests, and lament "How did the AI think this was okay??"