It doesn't when you use adaptive algorithms (and AI) for R&D (which we are starting to do in ever increasing quantities), and the process is thousands to billions to times faster than what a team of humans can do. Initial development will be slow. You can somewhat mitigate it with larger pool of humans working together, but the process will be infinitely less capable compared to automation. A conventional computer was able to repeat a full scientific experiment in mere 3 days that took10 years a team of scientists. Computer algorithms are also discovering new materials on a practically daily basis... new magnetic materials, etc. Automation is simply speaking far superior. And AI has reached a point already where its capable of learning on its own and even rewrite its own code. You seem to be not including any of these little facets into your consideration (and neither do Trek writers). Not really. Everything you mentioned is initially presented as a problem that can be analyzed with needed tools and eventually find a solution. Given how fast a computer can give you an extrapolation based on specific parameters in the 24th century alone, suggests to me the Trek writers hadn't considered just how powerful the technology actually is and what they could do with it. Actually, I do understand that. And what you're describing is basically a 'generalist' (and if I seem to recall, this is something I spoke about in these forums over the past few years). In fact, the way Trek Federation was portrayed, EVERY Federation citizen would have to have been a generalist (exposed to relevant general education in most fields with basic understanding and application of the scientific method in their thinking, along with critical thinking and problem solving capabilities), shortly after it was founded. Also, you don't know much about me, so I would suggest you refrain from making assumptions about what I do or don't know. And I'm not saying otherwise. I'm merely stating that you (like many others) seem to be ignoring fundamental aspects that are now part of reality (such as automation, along with its capabilities)... and that Trek writers are also not particularly good at incorporating these things into their stories (or thinking exponentially - in fact, even what I'm proposing would likely be 'slower than exponential') because up to date examples of Trek indicate that they usually either ignore or forget what was established in canon before (and living in the 21st century, I'm sure a TEAM of writers could make a half hour to 1 hr of effort and look up a few things and then work with it - it would likely need to be part of their jobs to do so), and tend to dumb down the story and the setting for the drama... as opposed to making an effort which would have the drama FIT the setting without dumbing anything down (or very little if there are time constraints - and yes I recognize there ARE time constraints... but when you have a team of writers, I'd expect a bit more).
And it still takes the humans to setup, analyze, test, & validate everything. Yes, it's faster than before, but at the end of the day, you still need to do real testing outside of the simulation to validate everything. Current AI isn't as good as you think it is. It's not as all mighty and amazing as you keep touting it. It's us humans who write the basic control logic and rule limits for AI. Simulation is just that, at the end of the day, you need to test against reality, and any oddities that occur will need you to retest your hypothesis. That's just general public education. Then give us your background and what do you specialize in. It's a open forum. If you want to extrapolate about the future, I'd like to know what you're basing things on. I think you're expecting WAY too much from automation and thinking that things change way faster than they really should. Especially given the life & responsibility of StarFleet Officers and what they're tasked to do on a day to day basis.
You don't want a show all about technology and problems being solved in a minute by AI algorithms? How does not sound like Star Trek and exploring the human adventure? O_o
I understand that quite well. And I think there is a push to remove the human when it comes to technological development and expect it to just expand and solve problems on its own. That humans are the downward limiter with technological growth and once they are removed then things improve. I am uncertain of the logic of such an argument.