!LOL

Increasingly less of what we can seek out on the internet will be potentially factual. More than ever in recorded history, the written word as indelibly committed to paper prior to this day, will be important. For the last decade the information available on the internet has decreased in both quantity and quality, and today such ability to judge that quality is simply nonexistent.

The people of the world will become less able to speak the truth, because they will have less of it to learn.

More than ever, our venerable aged and veterans of the struggles of our peoples will be essential to our culture, our nations, and our very survival as humanity. I am glad to have known you to this degree before our fight for our very reality has escalated to this extent.

Thanks!

That's the code of regulated Zeitgeist. It indeed has nothing to do with intelligence but with what the coder has programmed for such questions as pre-requisite. If I would be able to write code, I would probably have fun to let the AI answer that

"What are the great things that X (single) and Y (groups) have achieved?"

are non intelligent questions and that one has to try another question which is more intelligent. I would refer to non intelligent questions, such as:

How does form (or energy) influence matter?
What is matter?
What happens to form (the soul) if it leaves the matter (the body)?
How is it that 'mere' matter has come to be arranged in orderly forms?
What is the relationship between mind and body?

Which Alan Watts has named "idiotic questions" in "The Book" (On the taboo against knowing who you are). Those questions sound profound but they aren't.

Problems that remain persistantly insoluble should always be suspected as questions asked in the wrong way, like the problem of cause and effect. Make a spurious division of one process into two, forget, that you have done it, and then puzzle for centuries as to how the two get together.

An intelligent AI, how I see it, would respond to this questions like "what are great things?" with a counter question. Like
"Why do you think that I can define 'greatness'"? I can tell you in numbers and measurements how high a mountain is, for example, or the wind force of a storm, or the number of elements in chemistry. I can give you statistics that give certain sizes, masses and quantities and would talk about "big" or "small", "much" or "little" and the averages. But of " greatness " as understood by men (through prose and history writing, for example), I can say nothing except what is provided to me as digital sources, provided by humans who cannot be objective. Do you want subjective passages? I can provide you with plenty of them."

... Though I don't know that such an intelligent answer could be the result of smart programming (Are humor and paradoxes even codeable?). I understand too little about it. As far as your shown result reveals, it's laughable if one thinks of asking one and the same question but with different place holders. LOL