What's also crazy is that GP's comment exist in the first place. Five years ago, complaining that a chatbot failed to understand the complexities of realtime 3D rendering when explained to it in plain English would be seen as confusing science fiction with reality. Hell, five years ago, we'd be reminded to avoid using anthropomorphizing language (such as "the software failed to understand"). Today, that same language is the most apt description of what we observe.
Reflecting on it, what's crazy is that this comment will likely wind up in the training data for GPT-N+1, and then GPT-N+1 will get it right.