[mjw1007]

I think "wrong inputs" here is an odd way of saying that the model was bad (presumably to distinguish that problem from outright bugs in the design software or computer hardware failure).

https://eng-resources.uncc.edu/failurecasestudies/building-f...

says

« The roof design was extremely susceptible to buckling which was a mode of failure not considered by in that particular computer analysis and, therefore, left undiscovered. »

[kerkeslager]

Okay but again: was this failure because their expertise misled them?

[mjw1007]

Not as far as I can see, no.

That article contains the following claim: « Computers, however, are only as good as their programmer and tend to offer engineers a false sense of security. »

which matches the "dark side of expertise" talk's bit about « There was an emotional investment that the engineers had made in the new technology, so it was inconceivable to them that it could be giving them the wrong answers. »

That seems to me to be a different issue to being misled by one's own expertise, and in any case neither source bothers to give any evidence that it's true (that is, that the computer's involvement was the cause for the unreasonable trust in the model's results).

[bryanrasmussen]

No. In fact if they were misled by computers and they were not software engineers, which I had assumed they were not from them being called "Design Engineers" in the anecdote, it follows that they were not misled by their expertise but their assumptions of expertise from this unknown mysterious powerful new thing that a lot of money had been poured into.