Carl (author) here. This is a poor reading of the blog post. Notably, I built a general-purpose workload that simply exercises the write/checkpoint machinery. The exact same workload we use to break all kinds of transactional systems. This generic workload found the bug without any special knowledge of the bug, due to how Antithesis works.

I think the issue is that you knew there was a bug to be found in the write and checkpoint interactions, which then determined which workload you built.

My understanding is that this workload is very uncommon: the Tailscale blog says they used a custom unusual configuration to have many checkpoints like this. So without knowing the bug, it seems unlikely one would build this workload and then find the bug. If that makes sense.

Edit: just want to say that you being able to repro it is awesome, but that the overall claim seems a little overstated to me.

I read your ad.

It states you replicated the bug once the SQLite team fixed it, and published it.

Not sure what’s difficult about replicating behaviour when it’s spelled out for you.

Okay, so use the same methodology to find a new, unknown bug? That'd be actually impressive.

As-is, this is just 20/20 hindsight with concerns about leading the AI on through the prompt hand-waved away. Come on.