Still, in my area of CS, algorithmic thinking is an important aspect of the sort of systems we design, so this sort of question does help me build up a picture of the person's skills and approach to problems.
I have found though that there's pretty good correlation between how someone goes about answering this question (the mental process they follow, not whether they can jump to a solution), and how interesting the systems they've previously built are. And, although my sample size is small, the people who did best on this question also did best over the next few years on the systems they built and analyzed during their PhD.
I think interviews are basically just a way we fool ourselves into thinking what is essentially a random chance biased by a self-selected set of applicants is (relatively) more objective.
I don't know that there is a good alternative. I am quite sure the status quo is thoroughly broken.
What this interview question does is confirm your own biases regarding what "algorithmic thinking" is and little more.