Taking one glaring example of bias in the answers given by your chatbot, David. Below are the two conclusions reached about the different conflicts and the way these are described. First Russia/Ukraine;
"In summary, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is widely considered a violation of international law, particularly the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. Russia’s justifications, such as self-defense against NATO, humanitarian intervention, and the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk, do not meet the legal standards necessary to justify the invasion. The conflict has also raised concerns about serious violations of international humanitarian law, including the commission of war crimes. The international community continues to pursue legal and diplomatic actions to hold Russia accountable for its actions."
And the conclusion reached about legality of the US/UK invasion of Iraq;
Conclusion: The Legality of the Iraq War
The legality of the 2003 Iraq War remains highly contested. The U.S. and U.K. governments maintained that their actions were legal under existing Security Council resolutions. However, many in the international community, including prominent legal scholars and nations, viewed the war as illegal under international law due to the lack of explicit UN authorization and the questionable nature of the preemptive self-defense doctrine. Conclusion: The Legality of the Iraq War
The legality of the 2003 Iraq War remains highly contested. The U.S. and U.K. governments maintained that their actions were legal under existing Security Council resolutions. However, many in the international community, including prominent legal scholars and nations, viewed the war as illegal under international law due to the lack of explicit UN authorization and the questionable nature of the preemptive self-defense doctrine. Ultimately, the war highlighted deep divisions over the interpretation of international law and the authority of the United Nations in matters of war and peace."
Do you notice any difference in the kind of language used, particularly comparing the parts I have bolded?
Russia's invasion widely considered a violation of international law
but
The legality of the 2003 Iraq War remains highly contested.
It turns out that highly contested means the US/UK governments argue it was legal but everyone else considers it a violation of international law. Which seems the same as "widely considered a violation of international law? The whole moronic and inconsistent gibberish displays the limits of what you ought to ask chatbots, David.