这部纪录片在入狱前几周拍摄了令人羞辱的Theranos创始人Elizabeth Holmes，该片由内森·菲尔德(Nathan Fielder)和兰斯·奥本海姆(Lance Oppenheim)执导，故意拒绝将福尔摩斯定性为操纵大师或受害者，而是强调她那让人同情她的无能的几乎催眠的口吻，即使他们很清楚她的罪行。
泰勒·舒尔茨(Tyler Shultz)并不需要看到“你能看到一切”，舒尔茨的第一个大学毕业工作是在特拉诺斯，他是一个关键的吹哨人，揭露了公司危险的不准确血液检测装置，这些装置进入了沃尔格林斯商店，向真正的病人传递了错误的结果。 (Theranos尽管其技术从未真正发挥作用，却达到了约100亿美元的高峰估值——该公司只使用自己的机器进行一小部分测试，而将其他设备外包给第三方设备。 )
几乎没有理由继续谈论福尔摩斯——她的案子已经结案，她现在被联邦监狱关押——但她的同党在过去十年里迷上了媒体(包括我自己在内)。
事实上，正如舒尔茨·称在接受旧金山标准采访时所说，“我们现在谈论伊丽莎白·福尔摩斯的唯一原因是她希望我们现在谈论伊丽莎白·福尔摩斯。”
但提拉诺斯的警告故事在我们进入AI时代的高峰期时具有了新的意义，当时从未盈利的公司正在以一万亿美元的价值来筹集资本。
“我认为，与某人一起喝30分钟咖啡并给他们送去10万美元的日子应该结束了。 Elizabeth拿走了这个模型并将其缩放为一亿美元，"Shultz告诉了SF Standard.
他的外祖父是前美国国务卿和财政部长乔治·舒尔茨(George Shultz)，他本人是著名的投资者和董事会成员。
“我相信[荷姆斯]所做的是筹集了有史以来最大的一轮天使资助，但即使是在较小的层面上，我认为投资者也需要认识到，当他们把这类资金交给某人手中时，他们给了他们巨大的权力。”
Theranos的资金常常来自个人投资者，如DeVos和Walton家族，而不是风险公司。 Theranos没有分享科学信息，也没有分享其机器与潜在投资者合作的证据，以担心泄露商业秘密为由，阻止了硅谷的许多顶尖风险投资家。
当Theranos的欺诈被揭露时，它被看作是对投资者的警钟，他们需要优先注意尽责。 但在AI时代，舒尔茨担心投资者可能忘记这些教训。
称指出，“大赦国际的一个巨大危险是，我认为很难对此进行应有的注意。 ChatGPT包装纸，如果你想欺骗别人，我想这是去欺骗别人的好机会。”
“你能看见一切”的第一个问题在于电影本身的前提。 为何两个年幼孩子的母亲会选择邀请电影摄制组跟随她的家人一起度过最后的日子，然后才投降服超过11年的徒刑？这部电影提出的问题似乎令人不解，但这一部似乎相当清晰。 她希望人们同情她，因为这种怜悯对她未来的努力可能比仇恨或嘲笑更有用。
在影片中，我们看到福尔摩斯和她的搭档，酒店继承人比利·埃文斯(Billy Evans)在Haemanthus公司工作，一家他们称之为"Theranos 2.0"的诊断公司，据报道，该公司拥有约2000万美元的融资资金。
“你可以看到一切”并没有让福尔摩斯看起来好，但也掩盖了瑟拉诺斯更令人发指的罪行，像是向真正的病人提供危险的错误医疗信息，在"文化热潮"中，"福尔摩斯"比"不受欢迎的人"更是一个笑话。
Shultz 称，“我对接下来会发生什么感到不安，” “她肯定在准备和开始她的第二幕，我不知道她要去哪儿。 ”
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
“You Can See Everything,” the documentary capturing disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes’ final weeks before prison, is sparking national conversation as it becomes one of the highest-grossing documentaries of all time. The film, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, intentionally refuses to characterize Holmes as a master manipulator or victim, instead highlighting her uncanny, almost hypnotic knack for making people pity her, even when they’re well aware of her crimes.
Tyler Shultz didn’t need to see “You Can See Everything” to make up his mind about Holmes. Shultz, whose first job out of college was at Theranos, was a key whistleblower who exposed the company’s dangerously inaccurate blood testing devices, which made their way into Walgreens stores and delivered faulty results to real patients. (Theranos reached a peak valuation of around $10 billion despite its technology never actually working — the company only used its own machines for a fraction of tests, instead outsourcing others to third-party equipment.)
There is little reason to keep talking about Holmes — her case is closed, and she’s in federal prison — but her con-artistry has fascinated the media (myself included) for the last decade.
In fact, as Shultz says in an interview with The San Francisco Standard, “the only reason we’re talking about Elizabeth Holmes right now is because she wants us to be talking about Elizabeth Holmes right now.”
But the cautionary tale of Theranos takes on a new significance as we enter the peak of the AI era, when companies that have never turned a profit are raising capital at trillion-dollar valuations.
“I think the days of having a thirty-minute coffee with someone and sending them $100,000 should be over. Elizabeth took that model and scaled it to $100 million,” Shultz told SF Standard.
His grandfather, former U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz, was a notable investor and board member himself.
“I believe that what [Holmes] did was raise the biggest angel round of funding of all time, but even at the smaller levels, I think investors need to recognize that when they put that type of money in someone’s hands, they are giving them tremendous power,” he added.
Theranos’ funding often came from individual investors like the DeVos and Walton families, rather than venture firms. Theranos did not share scientific information or evidence that its machines worked with potential investors, citing concerns about revealing trade secrets, which warded off many top venture capitalists in Silicon Valley.
At the time when Theranos’ fraud was uncovered, it was seen as a shrill wake-up call for investors that they need to prioritize due diligence. But in the AI era, Shultz worries that investors may forget these lessons.
“A huge danger with AI is that I think it is really hard to do due diligence on it,” he said. “It’s really hard to tell the difference between what is something truly unique and new versus like, a ChatGPT wrapper… If you want to deceive people, I think this is a great opportunity to go deceive people.”
The first question posed by “You Can See Everything” lies in the premise of the movie itself. Why would a mother of two young children choose to invite a film crew to follow her final days with her family before surrendering to serve a prison sentence of over eleven years? The film poses questions that seem inscrutable, but this one seems pretty clear. She wants people to pity her, because this pity could be more useful for her future endeavors than hate or mockery.
In the film, we see Holmes and her partner, hotel heir Billy Evans, working on Haemanthus, a diagnostics company that they call “Theranos 2.0,” which has reportedly raised about $20 million in funding.
“You Can See Everything” doesn’t make Holmes look good, but it also glosses over the more heinous crimes of Theranos, like giving dangerously faulty medical information to real patients, or even its targeted harassment of Shultz himself when he was attempting to sound the alarm about his former employer. In the cultural zeitgeist, Holmes remains more of a joke than a persona non grata.
“I have this feeling of unease about what might come next,” Shultz said. “She’s certainly preparing and beginning her second act, and I don’t know exactly where it’s going to go.”
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.