I think this is what makes programming hard to improve. We have a poor understanding of what kinds of programs people want to write.
Those right questions to ask are VERY hard to find, so we programmers have to write many many very accurate answers about how our programs should behave. That process is called programming.
Intuitively difficult situations usually end up "conserving their difficulty." An easy solution means a difficult problem (hard to formulate the problem or the formalization of the problem is usually inapplicable). An easy problem usually means a difficult solution.
What I do think should happen, and will happen, is that we will keep getting a better understanding of what behavior people want most of the time -- including the common variations, and make it ever easier to achieve it.
So it shows you can uniquely identify any human with 33 yes-no questions, but reaching a member of a set isn't necessarily analogous to reaching a state of understanding.
It seems impossible for any question to be replaced with an interpretable meaning.
You could for example, have each of those questions be a series of geographical questions that eventually narrow down to a single point in space (you'll need to include z-axis questions as well). But the geographical regions cut out by each question will be insanely artificial.
Intuitively "satisfying" questions would probably require intrinsic questions, i.e. ones that could pick out individuals from the entire sea of hypothetical humans, living or dead, real or imagined.
For anyone who hasn't seen it before, Akinator [0] is based on this concept. Imagine a fictional character (or youtuber) and answer a series of questions, and the genie will figure it out.
(It works with just about any character at this point because if users find a path that doesn't result in a correct answer, they can add the character they were imagining)
[0] https://en.akinator.com/ - click "play" between the two app store icons.
Nothing is absolute in programming - anyone who's tried to uniquely identify a person in a database has struck this problem. For instance there was a time when gender was part of the key for a person in a database - not the case now.
I resent those questionnaires since it's never a firm yes or no but something in between (or sometimes something completely different).
You can't reduce the complexity of one human life to 33 questions.