Here's the summary of their example article (or perhaps the page?):

This email expresses a sarcastic and exaggerated perspective on the advancements and implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The author begins by expressing excitement about the technological marvels of AI, but then proceeds to poke fun at the complexity and convoluted nature of AI, its ability to predict our actions, and the replacement of human interaction with AI chatbots. The author also mocks the idea of AI-generated content and its ability to replicate human creativity, and the potential ethical concerns of relying on AI for decision-making. The email concludes with a sarcastic call to embrace the "glory" of AI and its potential to take over human autonomy. The tone of the email is light-hearted and humorous, but it also raises valid concerns about the role and impact of AI on our lives.

This isn't really a summary, there's some interpretation going on as well. I don't want AI to do any form of interpretation, but if it does so, it should be as metadata below the actual summary.

And honestly, I almost never get an email that I actually want to summarize. Most of them I can either completely ignore (corporate BS), or they're short and to the point. So it's weird to me that email is the first thing they mention.

So do you actually draw the line at Mozilla never building stuff like this into their browser, or is that a line you would be willing to cross too?

I won't. But my concern is that Mozilla is heading in the wrong direction lately, and I have used Firefox for a very long time.

I won't trust the AI Mozilla uses until they show us the source data. Not the source code that consumes a massive binary blob; the stuff that generated the binary blob they are using.