I haven't actually read TAOCP (yet!) so take this with all the salt you have on hand, but most fields are divisible into primary and secondary works. The ones you should read depend on how interested you are in the field and whether you want practical knowledge or deep conceptual knowledge.
Take mathematics as an example. It has a rich history of primary sources written by famed mathematicians. Most people never even glance at these sources and gain a practical understanding of mathematics strictly through secondary sources like textbooks. This is perfectly fine for most people that only need to use math mechanically and don't care too much about a deep theoretical understanding. If you want the latter however, imo reading primary sources and understanding the history of a field is really important.
To me, TAOCP has always been more of a primary source. If you're just looking for surface level knowledge and advice that's immediately applicable, look elsewhere. If you're looking to understand some of the fundamental concepts in the field of computing and their history, it might be a good fit.
Take mathematics as an example. It has a rich history of primary sources written by famed mathematicians. Most people never even glance at these sources and gain a practical understanding of mathematics strictly through secondary sources like textbooks. This is perfectly fine for most people that only need to use math mechanically and don't care too much about a deep theoretical understanding. If you want the latter however, imo reading primary sources and understanding the history of a field is really important.
To me, TAOCP has always been more of a primary source. If you're just looking for surface level knowledge and advice that's immediately applicable, look elsewhere. If you're looking to understand some of the fundamental concepts in the field of computing and their history, it might be a good fit.