Software horror: litellm PyPI supply chain attack. Simple `pip install litellm` was enough to exfiltrate SSH keys, AWS/GCP/Azure creds, Kubernetes configs, git credentials, env vars (all your API keys), shell history, crypto wallets, SSL private keys, CI/CD secrets, database passwords. LiteLLM itself has 97 million downloads per month which is already terrible, but much worse, the contagion spreads to any project that depends on litellm. For example, if you did `pip install dspy` (which depended on litellm>=1.64.0), you'd also be pwnd. Same for any other large project that depended on litellm. Afaict the poisoned version was up for only less than ~1 hour. The attack had a bug which led to its discovery - Callum McMahon was using an MCP plugin inside Cursor that pulled in litellm as a transitive dependency. When litellm 1.82.8 installed, their machine ran out of RAM and crashed. So if the attacker didn't vibe code this attack it could have been undetected for many days or weeks. Supply chain attacks like this are basically the scariest thing imaginable in modern software. Every time you install any depedency you could be pulling in a poisoned package anywhere deep inside its entire depedency tree. This is especially risky with large projects that might have lots and lots of dependencies. The credentials that do get stolen in each attack can then be used to take over more accounts and compromise more packages. Classical software engineering would have you believe that dependencies are good (we're building pyramids from bricks), but imo this has to be re-evaluated, and it's why I've been so growingly averse to them, preferring to use LLMs to "yoink" functionality when it's simple enough and possible.

I think this is mostly right. - LLMs created a whole new layer of abstraction and profession. - I've so far called this role "Prompt Engineer" but agree it is misleading. It's not just prompting alone, there's a lot of glue code/infra around it. Maybe "AI Engineer" is ~usable, though it takes something a bit too specific and makes it a bit too broad. - ML people train algorithms/networks, usually from scratch, usually at lower capability. - LLM training is becoming sufficently different from ML because of its systems-heavy workloads, and is also splitting off into a new kind of role, focused on very large scale training of transformers on supercomputers. - In numbers, there's probably going to be significantly more AI Engineers than there are ML engineers / LLM engineers. - One can be quite successful in this role without ever training anything. - I don't fully follow the Software 1.0/2.0 framing. Software 3.0 (imo ~prompting LLMs) is amusing because prompts are human-designed "code", but in English, and interpreted by an LLM (itself now a Software 2.0 artifact). AI Engineers simultaneously program in all 3 paradigms. It's a bit 😵‍💫