Man V.S Machine (the differences in a human and engine/bot opponent)

Greetings from Finland!

I have been wondering about all these "artificial intelligence" Chess bots + the engines themselves and how they play differently compared to a human.
For excample: when i was 28 yrs. old i played against this guy who was around 40 and i lost five games in a row. Then i kind of learned to know his way of playing and i changed my tactics to extremely aggressive capturing every piece he offered and i won. After that i won 80% of the games i played against him.
Sure; people get better just by playing as long as the opponent is better or equal (i get lazy without a challenge).

Here is a fine excample:

I have played 8 games in total with 10 min or less time on the clock since
i started playing Chess 16 years ago.
I like to count as far as possible so i perfer 60 min. on the clock.
Today i decided to play V.S the maia-5 bot (9+0) Rapid.
I got the white pieces and (lucky me) the Bot choose to counter 1.e4 with ...d5
(B01 Scandinavian Defense) = a game i know well.
After i won - i requested CPU analysis which said 96% accuracy so i wonder:
Does the CPU give "pity points" when counting the percentages if there is
less time on the clock?

Ultimately i think that the Lichess Bots are fun to play against compared to the CPU on a certain difficulty level (the CPU picks the similiar moves on every opening) or if compared with the bots on other sites.
I have a handwritten list about all of the rated games i have played on this site and found out that the scale of different opening
variations i have played against the bots is huge.