Sorry for a quick comment: Is there any evidence that computer vision systems can reliably do the QA step? what is the accuracy and precision like compared to traditional testing? 

Seconding this!!

I donated to the donation election fund. Just wanted to add a note here about why, in the hopes of encouraging others. (1) I want to encourage more posts during Giving Season, and I expect that a larger pool of money in the donation election fund would incentivize this; (2) I expect that the vote will allocate donations to high impact donation opportunities that are approximately as cost-effective as the donations I counterfactually allocate on my own; (3) there is at least one reason to expect the community vote to yield better donations than my own independent choice (something something Condorcet Jury Theorem).

Edit: Just seeing that Toby has a nice and more thorough post on the value of donating to the fund here, for those who missed it.

Thanks for the write-up! As a donor to the fund, it's really nice to see these reports. I occasionally wonder if I could obtain more cost-effective results by donating independently without the overhead of a managed fund. These reports reassure me that I almost certainly could not. Really grateful to the team for finding these incredible funding opportunities.

Thanks for the comment. I was clearly too quick with that opening statement. Perhaps in part I let my epistemic guard down there out of general frustration at the neglectedness of the topic, and a desire to attract some attention with a bold opener. So much harm could accrue to nonhuman animals relative to humans, and I really want more discussion on this. PLF is -- I've argued, anyway -- a highly visible threat to the welfare of zillions, but rarely mentioned. I hope you'll forgive an immodest but emotional claim.

I've edited the opener and the footnote to be more defensible, in response to this comment.

I actually don't believe, in the median scenario, that AIs are likely to both outnumber sentient animals and have a high likelihood of suffering, but I don't really want that to be the focus of this piece. And either way, I don't believe that with high certainty: in that respect, the statement was not reflective of my views.