The mention of objectivity in connection with LLM output is obviously farcical, but I'm curious about the motivation behind the experiment. Surely the value of speaking to organisations already deploying LLMs in live workplaces is identifying specific, solvable issues (aligned with Mozilla.ai's stated objectives) e.g. Project Zero's recent post about trying to make LLMs work in security research. Generalising those claims doesn't seem like a meaningful action, and as OP pointed out, doesn't provide any revelations to anyone with even a cursory view of the landscape. Mozilla's blog post ultimately seems more like marketing than a genuine attempt at research so from that lens it doesn't get me as heated as OP. But that is a tension Mozilla should be aware of if they're actually trying to build credibility with their blog if they're pushing SEO alongside whatever research they do end up publishing.