Oh dear.
This is EXACTLY the sort of problem computers are good for.
No AI can do most of the ordinary things a three year old can.
It was realised in the 1960s that there might be a problem with the very idea of AI and also traditional concepts of what are "hard" or "easy" problems.
Current AI is nothing of the sort. It's mostly various strategies of pattern MATCHING (not recognition) and human curated databases, or other "training" with human defined goals.
It's thus also no surprise that the current AI approach is worse at this WELL DEFINED problem than a dedicated algorithm, but is faster than humans. The speed is irrelevant though.
In the 1980s I argued that we didn't need faster more powerful computers to do AI. I argued that if we knew how to write such a program and the computer wasn't "powerful" enough it would just be very slow AI. In practice for most problems that don't involve real time (hitting a cricket ball or driving a car), the speed is irrelevant to being able to do it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
