If "I'll need a research team and five years" is actually a valid answer to X (eg: X="How do I determine if a given jpeg image contains a bird?", at least... uh, five years ago), then it's a valid answer for the purposes of answering both X and Y. The problem is people giving incorrect/non-answers like "you shouldn't do that", and then pretending they answered the question because they also gave a (presumed for the sake of argument to be correct) answer to some different question, Y.

That's just opinion. :)

The indisputable fact is that it is sometimes unhelpful and wrong.

Is it more harmful to be partially wrong in answering/trying to answer a difficult question, or wrong about helping at all?

Still, on the bright side with the rise of AI helpers, most people don't need anyone to answer trivial questions going forwards, and actually, it becomes (opinion, mine) increasingly clear that answering hard questions is significantly more valuable in a post-AI world.

/shrug

I think, most of the time, answering hard questions is actually not as hard as people imagine them to be.

The answer is usually either 'that's not possible because of blah' (eg. platform restriction) or 'doing it that way is hard because of blah, but if you wanted to, you would look up these things to do it'.

...but often people are too lazy to add that to their answers.

5 years is total utter hyperbole. Obviously.

Spend 10 minutes trying to answer X before you say 'do Y'. 10 minutes. It's such a tiny investment of time, you're just being lazy if you don't.