Nobody gets paid for "intent". You get paid for the result. I do not buy a video game that "intended to be good" and "had a great specification". It feels so weird that I tough that it was parody.
Next ... the bridge collapsed but that is beyond the point. Look at the specifications!
[–] danielrm26 4 days ago
The argument is that you need to understand why it failed, in the lifecycle between what we intended to build vs. what we built.
There's a massive difference between a bad design and bad materials, both of which could have caused it to fall.
You can get a bad design idea from the code/bridge as well, but it's pretty glaring when the intent said, "we believe balsa wood is the best bridge material", or "we decided to save 49% of our costs by getting our nuts and bolts from the Lego shop."
And if it did, that the specific load that made it collapse should have been specifically mentioned in the spec.
And if it was, well just wait until agents become the magical machine gods he assumes they are, then bridge collapses will be a thing of the past.
but let's be real, he and everyone else are machine generating their specs anyway, and the relevant spec didnt mention anything about bridges collapsing but instead 250 pages of llm waffling about the tensile strength of different structural materials, load patterns from different tyre treads, the effect of climate change on el nino and weather patterns for wind, and the bridge still fell down, because nobody had any idea what they were doing