I do wonder though about the optimizations within it, what could be the most optimal way to achieve such room (ie. knowing which questions to ask)
Yes, learning and tinkering is still really the greatest way to achieve that
but I think what I am talking about can be better simplified with the analogy of a gym: previously what used to be necessary (manual work/labour) but when most people got into information work, even then there was/is a need for it (physical work), then we saw the evolution of machines specifically designed to optimize for it and we got machines specifically designed for this training, which helped push people's body to their absolute limits.
I do wonder if an hyper-optimized environment of learning and for asking questions (or more so knowing the know how on which questions to ask), this whole process might be optimized for it and what that process might would look like is a source of curiosity to me.
Entirely agree with you, but I also lend some credence to the worry that capital owners and the managerial class might not want to pay a six-figure salary for "knowing the questions to ask".
I'd be lying if I said I hadn't spent any hours worrying about it. But on the other hand people pay for exactly that when it comes to law, accounting, actuaries, and whatever other white collar professions. I am nervous but optimistic for the time being.
They pay for tangible "deliverables" from those professions, too, not pure thought and judgment. One could probably argue that, as with programming, one has to have written a lot of code in order to think in code at a higher level, so to speak, although I can't say to what extent that's true in each of those domains.
However, the first part applies to programmers, too. A lot of the value of code _was_ simply in the fact that it was written, so you don't have to write it yourself. I'm not suggesting there isn't more to the value proposition, but the value destruction is there.
