This used to be true with deterministic algorithms but not anymore. LLMs give you a "good enough" approximate answer which will replace humans in many scenarios previously inaccessible to computers.

Yes, but the GP rightly pointed out that comparing AI capabilities to dumb humans is not very useful. After all, you wouldn't hire random people from the street to do your accounting either. As another example, I doubt that a lawyer's office would want to hire someone who cannot correctly answer the glass door puzzle, even if that person's main task was only summarizing texts.

To be fair, at the current pace of development I'd be surprised if the next iterations of GPT won't outperform most qualified humans, too.

The way I see it is there's now an IQ cutoff below which GPT will serve you better than a human for any "white-collar" task, and that cutoff point is rising with every new model.

There is no "point" it's just a technology. My point was that the OP question was actually very difficult to the point many people could not handle it. So the fact an AI can not is not entirely surprising.

Computers can perform prime factorisation of incredibly large numbers - I’m not aware of any human that can do that. Does that make my point clearer?