Okay this is a "machine generated" problem. And I don't think it is useful or fair question.
Grown up humans define $x^y$ as requiring that $x > 0$ and $x^y$ be defined for real (possibly irrational $y$) via the calculus definition[1].
Children humans define $x^y$ as requiring that $y$ be an integer and $x$ can be anything and $x^y = \underbrace{x*x*x*....*x}_{y\text{ times}}$.
And adolescent humans define $x^y$ as $y$ being a rational number written and $y=\frac mn$ in lowest terms ($n> 0$ but $m$ may be any integer) and $x^{\frac mn} =\sqrt[n]{x^m}$. $x$ can be any positive real but if $x< 0$ then we must have $n$ is odd and $x^y$ will flip from positive to negative whether $m$ is odd or even.
The adolescent human definition is rather naive and fairly useless and leads to confusion and problems. So "real" mathematicians use the grown-up human definition.
... But this "machine" used a combination of the adolescent human and the grown up human to have $x^x$ be the calculus real definition if $x > 0$, but if $x < 0$ then the adolescent domain only consists of rational numbers with odd denominators.
Now you are correct. For $f:\mathbb R^+ \to \mathbb R; f(x) = x^y$ the $\inf f(x) = e^{-\frac 1e}$ (when $x = \frac 1e$ then $f(x) =(\frac 1e)^{\frac 1e} = e^{-\frac 1e}$).
But if we allow negative rational with odd denominator values of $x$ into the domain as though we were adolescents then we can't have $\inf f(x) \ge 0$ because negative outputs do exist. SO the machine points at the $\inf f(x)$ if we allow negative values then the $\inf f(x) \approx -1.44467$. (This is $-e^{\frac 1e}$ by the way... and yes the value does not actually exist as the only negative values that do exist are the rationals with odd denominatiors-- but the $\inf f$ is a bound which need not be met... but... well, read the next paragraph....)
But I think this is an, at best, pointless question because that is a naive an problem riddled definition of exponents that grown-up mathematicians just don't use.
.... in my opinion.....
So, again in my opinion, I'd claim you are correct and the machine is wrong.... well, not wrong but rather severely missing the point of real analysis.
======
[1] There are two valid definitions of $b^x$.
One is $Ln:\mathbb R^+ \to \mathbb R$ via $Ln(x) = \int_1^x \frac 1t dt$. $Exp(x):\mathbb R \to \mathbb R^+$ via $Exp$ is the inverse function of $Ln$. That is $Exp(x) = Ln^{-1}(x) = y \iff Ln(y) = x$. And for $b > 0$ then $b^x = Exp(x\cdot Ln(b))$.
The other (far more intuitive but with many constructive and analytical drawbacks) is that $b^x$ is defined for $b > 0$ and $x\in \mathbb Q$ $b^x$ is defined the "adolescent" way above. But if $x \not \in \mathbb Q$ then if we take a sequence of rational $q_n$ so that $\lim q_n = x$ then $b^x$ is defined as $b^x = \lim b^{q_n}$.