The problem with asking these models stuff like "what do you think about humanity" is that, even if it can synthesize an insight about humanity, it's just as likely it's regurgitating some opinion it's already seen. Which, given that this "controversial idea" is hardly new, is likely what it's doing. It's like a maximally boring controversial opinion, wake me up when it starts endorsing the bicameral mind or something actually weird.

Maybe it can produce interesting insights. But it's like asking a pundit for a soundbite: what are the odds they aren't just shuffling together something that sounds appropriate to the question?