No, in general.
Kinda yes, to problems which are human related, in specific story based curcumstances.
As of today's neural network uses do show - we can, more or less, make programs and computers work with the same or similar principles as do our brains work, and in essence, it means what a human is capable of then a computer is capable of it too, especially in a sense of problem solving. Sure we are quite a way(or not) away from Asimov robots intelligence, but ....
- so no, and reasoning is quite similar to D.J. Klomp answer, which is correct, with a proof, if we are interested in knowing - is it possible or not, then correct answer is - no.
On the other hand, it is possible to have very different complexity in finding a solution, because of who or what one is. We can see such things every day - computer vision is still a challenge, but for most people, animals, insects it is not such a big problem.
On the other hand - AlphaGo plays go game better than any human on the planet - so there are things which those outperform himans already, and it not (from our standpoint of view) just crunching the numbers (it is but...)
For a human, it is easy to say if something tastes good, because yeah human equipt with predefined neural networks, receptor and all that - basically just because of it being a human, and because field of all those possible answers is created by humans, for humans, and because what humans are - as biological creatures, all that evolution and such.
A computer can be trained to answer what some human will find tasty, but it requires a lot more efforts, as of today, it sure is a high tech. But it can't answer the question what tastes good for that program - because the field of those answers does not exists, because of what the program is. Even for an human level AI it would be meaningless question with nan-answer (it can use it as words in communications with humans, but it just a way to transfer information, making things to react in a way etc)
So questions like - what do you like - will always be simplier to answered by humans than programs, because humans can use themselfs as gauge, as etalon, as master reference, and do not have to make some convoluted estimation metrics.
It goes deeper than that, not just like/dislik but also how, in which way humans can change, evolve, but it is harder to explain.
But as easier example of that - classics - what is meaning of life. Humans can define it by their actions and such - meaning they can make self fulfilling prophecy, choose it to be, and anything out of wide range of potencial answers can become the One correct answer. (But such a choice can be predicted, given enough hightech data and all that - kinda)
So there can be some problems with disparity of complexity, is such a difference is enough - it depends on a story, what do they have, and what they do not have.
In general attempt to find such a clear disvision line between - is so old fashion, 70's really. Correct answer is no, but you can easy handwave it to yes in thousands of ways, as an example by degree of development of the means they have and not only that.