Re: I think I understand why ...
Thing is, that's a legitimate question to which there is a clear and correct answer.
My mother was a librarian for 40 years. You ask her that question and she'd say, ok, that's a question about biology, and it's a really specific question at that, so forget encyclopedia, you're going to need a book about birds in particular, that's going to be in this section, I'm going to recommend the following based on their entries in our catalogue.
If pressed, she'd be able to find those, parse their indexes, and either find the correct answer or tell you that the answer wasn't available within the books they had in their collection, so she's going to recommend that you contact a number of specialist collections - possibly there's going to be something more useful in the Radcliffe Science Library, and we can get it on inter-library loan from Oxford.
One way or another you'd get that information - and if the public library actually had access to the complete text of everything in one of the reference collections like the one at the Bodleian or the British Library a qualified librarian would definitely be able to get you an answer.
Given the utterly vast amount of information that these "AI" have been trained on, there's actually a decent chance that the answer is in there somewhere, but it's not finding it. The problem is they don't understand the question!
They're just gluing sentences together out of probabilistically linked fragments. They have no idea if the answer is right or not, or how one discerns a correct answer from an incorrect one. This is the difference between genuine knowledge and... well, whatever the fuck this is.