7 ms·

Justice Department charged both with a litany of white-collar crimes in a case aimed at putting a stop to the Silicon Valley practice of overselling the capabil

Justice Department charged both with a litany of white-collar crimes in a case aimed at putting a stop to the Silicon Valley practice of overselling the capabilities of a still-developing technology — a technique that became known as “fake it ’til you make it.” I don't think this was true. I thought the point was that their fraud endangered lives because people were relying on test results. And there was some straight up defrauding of investors. I she's was actually being punished on behalf of people disliking "fake it till you make it" then that wouldn't be fair. I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet, which is what I think of as fake it till you make it. That's not the same as telling people you possess a technology that doesn't exist, or giving people health information based on your nonexistent technology. It's an important distinction.

bluefirebrand 3y ago
> I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet I don't have a problem with showing those mocks. I have a problem with selling those mocks, for something that winds up being impossible to build in reality because you're being way over-optimistic about your capability.
JohnFen 3y ago
> I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet, which is what I think of as fake it till you make it. That isn't at all what I think of when I hear the term "fake it 'till you make it". To me, the phrase means "pretend like you have a functional and complete product until the day arrives that you actually do." "Fake it 'till you make it", along with "move fast and break things", are (to me) indicative of the decline of our industry. Both of those used to mean very narrow (and correct) understandings. But they've been generalized to the point of malignancy.
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
> I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet, which is what I think of as fake it till you make it. That's not the same as telling people you possess a technology that doesn't exist, The issue in SV is that your definition of "fake it 'till you make it" is actually way too honest and reasonable.[1] I'd actually argue that your stance isn't quite faking it as you're being quite upfront with reality (at least in this hypothetical you wrote about). Actual Silicon Valley fake it 'till you make it culture is selling the mockups as the real deal. It's using wireframes or illustrated screenshots and stating that this is the actual behavior, or exactly like what the experience is going to be. I've been in the ML space for about a decade, so I'll add on the many anecdotes I've personally witnessed: it's also saying that "this little button here will do X,Y,Z using 'Deep Learing'". There's never any actual prototype that even does what the shrills are selling! No proof of concept. No actual work done to even reasonably demonstrate that the concept is possible. *This* is the SV fake it 'till you make it culture. And it's destroying the entire tech industry. It's sucking away useful investment dollars and putting it into the hands of fakes like Elizabeth Holmes and other criminal frauds. Hopefully, her high-profile criminal case will lead to a systematic change in the industry. I for one would love to see more regulation and licensing around software engineering. Too much hype and money is wasted on incompetent people who aren't actually building anything these days! [1] Apologies if this feels directed towards "you." I'm only attempting to address my interpretation your written perspective here. And only in so far as it doesn't quite align with what I see (which ofc. is just _my_ perspective of reality). I don't want this coming off as any sort of personal attack, which often happens online :-/
dekhn 3y ago
You're right: she absolutely believed that her technology already worked, or only needed some product development and marketing. She was enraptured in her own reality distortion field.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  There is no way she believed the technology worked. Her employees told her it didn't work. They were still validating the devices by comparing results with working machines at the time the machines were handling customer samples. At best, she might have believed that the technology could work in the future after some technological breakthrough.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    It doesn't really matter much if she believed the technology worked or not (if she did, she was delusional for the very reasons you cite). What mattered is that she told people things that she knew weren't true in order to extract investment money from them.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  Then she was beyond delusional. I brought up Theranos technology at the medical device company I was working at the time. The response I got was "well it doesn't seem feasible, but I guess we'll pay attention to them in case they see something we don't." The industry already knew it wasn't going to work.
atombender 3y ago
> I thought the point was that their fraud endangered lives because people were relying on test results No. She was convicted of several counts of financial fraud on investors. The definition of that crime does not encompass "endangering lives". In fact, a lot of people expressed disappointment that she was not tried for endangering patients. You can read the judge's sentencing statement here [1], which goes into their reasoning. Here [2] is the main wire fraud law she was convicted of violating. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/11/23/1138988456/read-what-a-judge-told-elizabeth-holmes-before-sending-her-to-prison-for-11-year https://www.npr.org/2022/11/23/1138988456/read-what-a-judge-... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343
- fineIllregister 3y ago
  In addition, her partner Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani was convicted of multiple counts of defrauding patients.
4rt 3y ago
Theranos sued multiple blood pathologists into oblivion who were pointing out that it was fundamentally physically impossible to do what they claimed they were already doing. Thepathologyblawg was one. No amount of microfluidics can improve a 100ml arterial blood test to being done with a 1ml finger prick test because of biology (capillaries filter cells by size) and the statistics of sample sizes. It isn't a matter of "not having met deadlines". It was just fraud mixed with enough money to hide the fraud, so maybe a ponzi?

bluefirebrand 3y ago

> I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet I don't have a problem with showing those mocks. I have a problem with selling those mocks, for something that winds up being impossible to build in reality because you're being way over-optimistic about your capability.

JohnFen 3y ago

> I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet, which is what I think of as fake it till you make it. That isn't at all what I think of when I hear the term "fake it 'till you make it". To me, the phrase means "pretend like you have a functional and complete product until the day arrives that you actually do." "Fake it 'till you make it", along with "move fast and break things", are (to me) indicative of the decline of our industry. Both of those used to mean very narrow (and correct) understandings. But they've been generalized to the point of malignancy.

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

> I don't see a problem with showing mocked up screenshots of an app you haven't built yet, which is what I think of as fake it till you make it. That's not the same as telling people you possess a technology that doesn't exist, The issue in SV is that your definition of "fake it 'till you make it" is actually way too honest and reasonable.[1] I'd actually argue that your stance isn't quite faking it as you're being quite upfront with reality (at least in this hypothetical you wrote about). Actual Silicon Valley fake it 'till you make it culture is selling the mockups as the real deal. It's using wireframes or illustrated screenshots and stating that this is the actual behavior, or exactly like what the experience is going to be. I've been in the ML space for about a decade, so I'll add on the many anecdotes I've personally witnessed: it's also saying that "this little button here will do X,Y,Z using 'Deep Learing'". There's never any actual prototype that even does what the shrills are selling! No proof of concept. No actual work done to even reasonably demonstrate that the concept is possible. *This* is the SV fake it 'till you make it culture. And it's destroying the entire tech industry. It's sucking away useful investment dollars and putting it into the hands of fakes like Elizabeth Holmes and other criminal frauds. Hopefully, her high-profile criminal case will lead to a systematic change in the industry. I for one would love to see more regulation and licensing around software engineering. Too much hype and money is wasted on incompetent people who aren't actually building anything these days! [1] Apologies if this feels directed towards "you." I'm only attempting to address my interpretation your written perspective here. And only in so far as it doesn't quite align with what I see (which ofc. is just _my_ perspective of reality). I don't want this coming off as any sort of personal attack, which often happens online :-/

dekhn 3y ago

You're right: she absolutely believed that her technology already worked, or only needed some product development and marketing. She was enraptured in her own reality distortion field.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
There is no way she believed the technology worked. Her employees told her it didn't work. They were still validating the devices by comparing results with working machines at the time the machines were handling customer samples. At best, she might have believed that the technology could work in the future after some technological breakthrough.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It doesn't really matter much if she believed the technology worked or not (if she did, she was delusional for the very reasons you cite). What mattered is that she told people things that she knew weren't true in order to extract investment money from them.
HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
Then she was beyond delusional. I brought up Theranos technology at the medical device company I was working at the time. The response I got was "well it doesn't seem feasible, but I guess we'll pay attention to them in case they see something we don't." The industry already knew it wasn't going to work.

atombender 3y ago

> I thought the point was that their fraud endangered lives because people were relying on test results No. She was convicted of several counts of financial fraud on investors. The definition of that crime does not encompass "endangering lives". In fact, a lot of people expressed disappointment that she was not tried for endangering patients. You can read the judge's sentencing statement here [1], which goes into their reasoning. Here [2] is the main wire fraud law she was convicted of violating. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/11/23/1138988456/read-what-a-judge-told-elizabeth-holmes-before-sending-her-to-prison-for-11-year https://www.npr.org/2022/11/23/1138988456/read-what-a-judge-... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343

fineIllregister 3y ago
In addition, her partner Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani was convicted of multiple counts of defrauding patients.

4rt 3y ago

Theranos sued multiple blood pathologists into oblivion who were pointing out that it was fundamentally physically impossible to do what they claimed they were already doing. Thepathologyblawg was one. No amount of microfluidics can improve a 100ml arterial blood test to being done with a 1ml finger prick test because of biology (capillaries filter cells by size) and the statistics of sample sizes. It isn't a matter of "not having met deadlines". It was just fraud mixed with enough money to hide the fraud, so maybe a ponzi?