This week on WIRED’s Uncanny Valley podcast, Global Editorial Director Katie Drummond joins hosts Brian Barrett and Leah Feiger to pull back the curtain on her highly anticipated, and viral, interview with acclaimed comedian and filmmaker Nathan Fielder. The conversation, which delved into Fielder’s latest documentary, You Can See Everything, also touched upon significant recent developments in the tech world, including substantial philanthropic pledges from tech billionaires, and a disturbing wave of suspicious letters targeting election offices nationwide.
Drummond, who was among a select few to preview Fielder’s documentary prior to its public release, shared the intricate process of securing the exclusive interview. The project was shrouded in secrecy for three years, requiring participants to sign non-disclosure agreements before even learning the subject matter. This level of discretion, Drummond explained, was a testament to Fielder’s unique approach to press and his desire to control the narrative surrounding his work. The documentary itself, You Can See Everything, focuses on Fielder’s time spent inside the home of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes in the weeks leading up to her incarceration for defrauding investors. Holmes’s blood-testing startup, Theranos, once valued at $9 billion, was exposed as a fraudulent enterprise when its much-touted rapid and accurate blood tests proved to be nonexistent.
The Art of the Secretive Interview
The initial outreach from Fielder’s publicist was met with immediate enthusiasm from Drummond, a self-proclaimed admirer of Fielder’s distinctive brand of humor and sharp social commentary. "If you know me at all and my taste in comedy and the kind of TV I watch, you would know that I have many minutes to talk about Nathan Fielder," Drummond recounted on the podcast. The process of agreeing to the interview involved signing an NDA, with details about the project only revealed afterward. Drummond admitted to a moment of prevarication when asked if WIRED had a cover available for Fielder, quickly securing a slot before the full scope of the project was disclosed.
Drummond also addressed the inherent challenges of interviewing someone as adept at subverting expectations as Fielder. She acknowledged that Fielder expressed discomfort with the interview process itself, stating, "I hate this. I hate that this is happening to me right now." This candid admission highlights Fielder’s well-documented aversion to traditional interviews and his preference for allowing his work to speak for itself. His strategy, Drummond observed, often involved turning the tables and posing questions to the interviewer, a tactic he employed to maintain a degree of control and to process his own experiences during the filmmaking.
"I think he genuinely doesn’t feel very comfortable expressing himself with words," Drummond explained. "I think he has talked before in interviews about how that is a real weakness for him, and so I think he feels uncomfortable trying to do it." Fielder’s reluctance to share his personal feelings about the subjects of the documentary was also a key factor. He aimed to prevent his own interpretations from unduly influencing public perception of the film, preferring viewers to form their own conclusions. Drummond elaborated on how the interview process, and subsequent review of the published piece, prompted her to reflect more deeply on the documentary itself, particularly regarding the filmmaker’s perspective. She initially questioned whether Fielder’s viewpoint was sufficiently evident, but ultimately concluded that his directorial decisions, including what was included and excluded, and how subjects were framed, conveyed his perspective.
The interview, upon publication, garnered significant attention, leading to Drummond’s own appearance in various media outlets, including a mention on TBPN and her participation in the Uncanny Valley podcast itself. Drummond expressed her personal preference for remaining behind the scenes as an editor, finding the spotlight of public attention "unpleasant." She humorously addressed some of the public’s misinterpretations of her interview, particularly concerning her search results being skewed towards "felon" and "criminal" due to a joke made during the podcast.
A Reckoning with Past Coverage
Adding another layer to the Fielder coverage, WIRED also published a piece by former editor Adam Rogers that critically examined the magazine’s own history with Theranos. In the early 2010s, WIRED was among the first outlets to prominently feature and praise Theranos, contributing to its meteoric rise and public acclaim. Rogers’s article represented a candid self-examination of those editorial decisions.
Drummond characterized Rogers’s piece as a "sharp reckoning with the editorial decisions that were made around that interview" and a reflection of WIRED’s current editorial stance. She noted that while the journalists involved in the original Theranos coverage were undoubtedly intelligent, the media landscape and prevailing culture at the time fostered a more celebratory approach to startup founders and emerging technologies, often without the critical scrutiny warranted. The narrative of a young, female self-made billionaire in personalized medicine, Drummond suggested, was a compelling story that media outlets were eager to embrace. In contrast, the WIRED of today, she posited, would likely approach such a startup with a higher degree of skepticism and demand more robust evidence of commercial viability before offering widespread coverage. This evolution reflects a broader shift towards greater skepticism regarding tech companies, their funding, and their impact.
Tech Billionaires and Philanthropic Pledges: A Wave of Generosity?
The podcast also addressed a recent surge in philanthropic announcements from prominent tech figures. Anthropic, an AI safety and research company, declared its intention to commit 5 percent of its company shares to a public benefit fund aimed at addressing the labor market impacts of artificial intelligence. This announcement was followed by a pledge from Elon Musk, via X (formerly Twitter), to donate one SpaceX share to "every child in America" in the coming year, promising further such initiatives.
Leah Feiger expressed considerable skepticism regarding these pledges, particularly Musk’s. "The idea that there’s now this whole philanthropic streak of, as you said, sorts is of note. It’s the idea that like, oh, OK, we’re actually that unpopular that we need to weigh in to some respect," Feiger commented. She highlighted the stark contrast with the philanthropic landscape of a decade ago, which saw significant contributions to climate initiatives and foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The current trend, she suggests, may be driven by a perceived need to mitigate growing public disapproval of powerful tech entities.
Brian Barrett further analyzed the potential motivations behind these pledges, drawing a distinction between Musk’s announcement and Anthropic’s. While acknowledging the significant monetary value of Musk’s offer, he pointed out that it represents a small fraction of SpaceX’s overall stock and would amount to a modest sum per individual. The Anthropic pledge, however, is framed within the context of AI’s potential to disrupt employment. Barrett described it as a form of "UBI as dictated by Anthropic," where the company positions itself as the arbiter of societal well-being in the face of AI-driven change. He found the amount of power these companies seek to consolidate "astonishing."
Feiger connected these philanthropic gestures to the impending midterm elections and the increasing unpopularity of certain tech infrastructure, such as data centers, and the broader application of AI. She noted the bipartisan opposition to AI’s current trajectory, remarking on the companies’ ability to rapidly alienate public opinion. The timing of these announcements, she argued, appears strategic, designed to distract from ongoing controversies and regulatory scrutiny.
Barrett introduced an observation by Matt Levine of Bloomberg’s Money Stuff, suggesting that these philanthropic proposals reflect each entity’s self-perception. Anthropic’s pledge suggests a belief in their unique capacity to manage societal impacts, while Musk’s reflects a focus on individual entrepreneurship. He also referenced a report that OpenAI considered offering the U.S. government a 5 percent stake, interpreted as a signal of willingness to collaborate with governmental bodies. All these approaches, Barrett concluded, share an underlying assumption that AI will fundamentally alter the economic landscape, necessitating proactive measures to manage its consequences.
Feiger further elaborated on the potential strategic calculations behind these pledges, particularly in light of shifting political landscapes and evolving regulatory proposals. She questioned whether a company like OpenAI would maintain its offer to a Democratic-controlled Congress, given the potential for a significant change in the political climate following the elections. The broader role of the tech world in philanthropy, she argued, is particularly noteworthy as many companies have scaled back their internal Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.
Barrett then touched upon the influence of the "effective altruism" movement on companies like Anthropic. He explained that the priorities within this philosophy may not align with traditional philanthropic concerns, leading to a focus on perceived future solutions, such as AI solving climate change or cancer, potentially diverting resources from more immediate, pressing issues.
A Campaign of Harassment Against Election Offices
The podcast also addressed a deeply concerning development: a coordinated campaign of suspicious letters sent to election offices across at least 32 states in the weeks leading up to the midterm elections. WIRED’s investigation, spearheaded by David Gilbert, uncovered the widespread nature of this harassment. The letters, some containing white powder, prompted evacuations and instilled fear among election officials. While the substances were ultimately found to be non-harmful, the psychological impact and disruption were significant.
Leah Feiger recounted an incident in Louisiana where an election official was hospitalized after opening a letter containing white powder, underscoring the immediate danger and alarm caused by these packages. She emphasized that this was not an isolated event, with similar letters targeting offices nationwide. The FBI and USPS are reportedly investigating, but details remain scarce regarding leads or the scale of the identified threats.
Barrett highlighted the bipartisan nature of these letters, which also targeted congressional offices, suggesting a broad attempt to sow discord. Feiger praised the U.S. Postal Service for intercepting many of the letters, but noted that in some instances, they reached their intended recipients, leading to evacuations and significant disruptions. She stressed that election officials are already under immense pressure from various threats, including election denier groups and concerns about voter intimidation, making this additional harassment particularly burdensome.
The psychological toll on election officials was a central theme. Feiger expressed concern that the cumulative pressure could impact the integrity of the election process. "If you’re listening to this podcast and you feel comfortable going out to vote, go vote. But there’s a different undercurrent right now," she stated, referencing the anxieties of NGOs, local activists, and election workers themselves. The fear of voter intimidation, including past rhetoric about immigration officers patrolling polls, creates a tense atmosphere.
The motivation behind these letters remains unclear, though Barrett noted an attempt to falsely attribute the letters to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in Utah, a claim the DSA has denied. Feiger described this as a potential "false flag" operation, designed to exacerbate existing political divisions and create further distrust. The goal, she suggested, is disunity, a tactic often employed to undermine democratic processes.
WIRED/TIRED Picks: Navigating the Week’s Trends
The podcast concluded with the segment "WIRED/TIRED," where hosts and guests share what’s new and exciting versus what’s passé. Brian Barrett declared "moving to another country" as "TIRED," specifically referencing a WIRED story about expats who, after fleeing the U.S. due to political reasons, found their new European homes did not meet their idealized expectations. He advised thorough research before such a significant life change. For his "WIRED" pick, Barrett lauded the wallpaper of an iPhone Duo review by WIRED gear editor Julian Chokkattu, featuring an adorable Snoopy illustration, which he found personally uplifting.
Leah Feiger’s "WIRED" pick was a focus on Halloween media, including classics like The Witches of Eastwick and Hocus Pocus, as a welcome distraction from election anxieties. Her "TIRED" pick, however, was a "real-life spooky tale" concerning significant internet vulnerabilities discovered by WIRED’s security team, including two serious PHP vulnerabilities that could affect millions of websites. She urged listeners to explore WIRED’s security section for what she termed a "real-life Halloween experience." The episode underscored the multifaceted nature of current events, from the intricacies of media interviews and technological advancements to the critical importance of safeguarding democratic processes.
