A fictional interview with Frances Allen(voxmeditantis.com)
voxmeditantis.com
A fictional interview with Frances Allen
https://voxmeditantis.com/2025/12/13/frances-elizabeth-allen-the-woman-who-made-code-run-fast-and-was-forgotten-because-it-worked/
19 comments
Yes, that's bad. I've made the title clear, at least, above.
Would it make sense to replace the link with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Allen or a proper biography?
And maybe even permaban a site that's fabricating interviews with real people (without disclosing that until 16,000 words later).
And maybe even permaban a site that's fabricating interviews with real people (without disclosing that until 16,000 words later).
I've written to <[email protected]> about how deceptive it was to put the Editorial Note at the end instead of upfront. I stopped reading because sections felt fabricated - but it was presented as an oral history or actual interview. What a terrible way to present the work of a pioneer.
I have received feedback from Vox. The article has been updated with a new leading paragraph indicating the fictional nature of the article.
That disclosure is infuriatingly only at the end of the piece, after 16,000 words.
The only hint I saw: there's many unusual notes in how she's speaking, which don't come across comfortably. You have to stop and consider whether she's speaking out of personal bitterness and resentment, or is using herself as an example, to drive home a point about how women in general were mistreated. Then it turns out it's fabricated, and this is not what she spoke in an interview.
I'm very sympathetic to the message, but angry over the misleading way it was presented.
The disclosure comes only after 16,000 words of fabricated interview and community Q&A. And, in the ~900-word afterword, the "We ask you to read this interview in the spirit in which it is offered: as a thoughtful, historically grounded, but frankly fictional..." really should've been at the beginning. I hope this was a publication editing mistake, rather than intentional.
We need people to be much smarter than we are right now. Yet, in a discourse environment in which truth and reasoning are being attacked and eroded from many directions, this article offers new bad example to young adults.
The only hint I saw: there's many unusual notes in how she's speaking, which don't come across comfortably. You have to stop and consider whether she's speaking out of personal bitterness and resentment, or is using herself as an example, to drive home a point about how women in general were mistreated. Then it turns out it's fabricated, and this is not what she spoke in an interview.
I'm very sympathetic to the message, but angry over the misleading way it was presented.
The disclosure comes only after 16,000 words of fabricated interview and community Q&A. And, in the ~900-word afterword, the "We ask you to read this interview in the spirit in which it is offered: as a thoughtful, historically grounded, but frankly fictional..." really should've been at the beginning. I hope this was a publication editing mistake, rather than intentional.
We need people to be much smarter than we are right now. Yet, in a discourse environment in which truth and reasoning are being attacked and eroded from many directions, this article offers new bad example to young adults.
||voxmeditantis.com^$importantRelated:
Frances Allen has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24066832 - Aug 2020 (101 comments)
Frances Allen has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24066832 - Aug 2020 (101 comments)
I've long agreed with her assessment that the biggest mistake the software industry made was to adopt C over safe languages like Pascal, Modula-2, Oberon and Ada. It has held back the software industry for over 40 years. It's good to see Rust come along but it still isn't as safe as Ada, and especially as Ada SPARK.
Whether or not every historical detail in the story is perfectly accurate, the pattern itself feels familiar.
Tesla ended up as the name of a car company, and hardly anyone pauses to think about the scientist anymore.
Some contributions succeed so completely that they dissolve into the everyday and fall off the list of things we consciously praise.
That disappearance is, in its own way, evidence that the work was gold.
Quite a person, glad to see she was won the Turing Award before she passed. But she should have recognized earlier in her life.
There is something off about this piece. Particularly the section that starts "You passed away on your eighty-eighth birthday – 4th August 2020. Do you reflect on mortality?"
I stopped reading after that.
An Editorial Note is at the bottom (as others have now noted), it should have been at the top. Had I not seen other comments I would likely have believed everything was made up. This is a terrible way to recount the memory of Frances Allen.
I have received feedback from Vox. The article has been updated with a new leading paragraph indicating the fictional nature of the article.
A bit off topic, sorry, but why pick such a blurry / poorly lit picture? (and make it transparent, to add insult to injury)
There are much better pictures, e.g.: https://www.hamiltonfuneralhome.com/obituaries/Frances-Eliza...
There are much better pictures, e.g.: https://www.hamiltonfuneralhome.com/obituaries/Frances-Eliza...
Because the AI, and the person who initiated this fictional article, DNGAS about this giant in software.
She won the Turing Award. That's hardly being forgotten.
Is this an interview with her, purportedly made five years after her death?
Yes, apparently. At the very end, it says:
> This interview transcript is a work of dramatised historical reconstruction. Frances Allen died on 4th August 2020, and cannot speak. The words, reflections, and responses attributed to her in this document are constructed from historical records, published interviews, biographical materials, technical papers, and documented accounts of her life and work – but they are not her actual words, spoken in real time.
> What preceded this was a fictional dramatisation, constructed with the intention of being historically responsible and intellectually faithful to what is known of Frances Allen’s thinking, her work, her values, and her reflections on her career. The interview format was used to explore her contributions, challenges, and insights in a narrative form – one that aims to capture the nuance, personality, and candid self-reflection that archival records alone rarely convey.
> This is an imaginative reconstruction of what Frances Allen might have said, had she been able to sit down for an extended conversation in December 2025, with the benefit of hindsight and the perspective of someone reflecting on a complete career arc. It draws on: ...
> This is not a transcript of actual words she spoke. It is not a formal biography. It is not an attempt to present speculation as fact or to invent details about her life that are not grounded in historical evidence.
But how many people will read far enough to spot that note?
This stinks of AI slop.
There's an actual 75-minute interview with Allen made in 02008 at https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10270196..., with an 18-page transcript.
Is this an interview with her, purportedly made five years after her death?
Yes, apparently. At the very end, it says:
> This interview transcript is a work of dramatised historical reconstruction. Frances Allen died on 4th August 2020, and cannot speak. The words, reflections, and responses attributed to her in this document are constructed from historical records, published interviews, biographical materials, technical papers, and documented accounts of her life and work – but they are not her actual words, spoken in real time.
> What preceded this was a fictional dramatisation, constructed with the intention of being historically responsible and intellectually faithful to what is known of Frances Allen’s thinking, her work, her values, and her reflections on her career. The interview format was used to explore her contributions, challenges, and insights in a narrative form – one that aims to capture the nuance, personality, and candid self-reflection that archival records alone rarely convey.
> This is an imaginative reconstruction of what Frances Allen might have said, had she been able to sit down for an extended conversation in December 2025, with the benefit of hindsight and the perspective of someone reflecting on a complete career arc. It draws on: ...
> This is not a transcript of actual words she spoke. It is not a formal biography. It is not an attempt to present speculation as fact or to invent details about her life that are not grounded in historical evidence.
But how many people will read far enough to spot that note?
This stinks of AI slop.
There's an actual 75-minute interview with Allen made in 02008 at https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10270196..., with an 18-page transcript.
The whole site is AI slop.
Might be good to put that up top next time.