I don't really see the problem here, if it doesn't divert too much resources and it actually leads to bugs and exploits being fixed, why should it be a bad thing? With all the slop AI is being used for this seems like a rather good usecase.

for more context as to why this is not that good of an idea as it may seem - please look at curl project and barrage of false security reports made. and curl is a cli project which just handles many protocols, and does not practically do any processing. firefox and any modern browser is basically a operating system and even a hardware (in forms of wasm allowing you to run arbitrary assembly written in systems programming language).

The difference is that anthropic did due diligence. They narrowed their scope as a research project to just the JS engine. They then fully vetted 1 issue, had a complete minimum-test-case that would reporoduce the issue, then contacted Mozilla with it.
Mozilla then said "send over the rest, vetted or not", who then vetted them all.
Mozilla's findings with the bugs found by Claude were fed back to anthropic to hone the model.

So, it's completely different that someone yeeting a codebase into an LLM and reporting whatever it spewed out.
Anthropic required Claude to actually produce an example exploit of it. And it REALLY struggled to do this. But it did get there eventually, for 1 bug. Which they then reported.
Even then, the exploit was in the JS engine. It wouldn't have escaped the sandbox to actually be an issue. Classic defence-in-depth

Shitty use of AI is fucking horrible. It wastes resources, it wastes time, it wastes energy.
I think this is a responsible use of an LLM in limited scope to produce an actually useful result.

Just like you've mentioned, I personally use Librewolf as I find it to be a suitable alternative to Chome and native Firefox.

Hard to say if anyone left at Mozilla isn't drinking the AI koolaid at this point unfortunately.

Very informative. Thanks for sharing