On the wins you partly credit to CeSIA, I’m skeptical because (1) attribution here is very hard to measure, and (2) from where I sit those outcomes seem unlikely to have emerged from CeSIA’s actions. I say this working closely inside the French ecosystem. I’d hold your own “I don’t really know” more centrally.
I’d also add that this underestimates the negative side effects of playing a political game without much experience rather than the more straightforward DIP that ControlAI seems to be suggesting to CeSIA.
It’s true that in some parts of the post, I blur two things: the insider/outsider distinction it’s actually about, and my particular CeSIA experience of this.
On attribution, I think the post is actually closer to your position than you seem to imply. The opening list is phrased as open questions, plus the post-scriptum concedes that outside pressure may have created the conditions that insiders leveraged. So “hold your ‘I don’t know’ more centrally” is roughly the stance I’m already taking. The only outcomes I attribute concretely to CeSIA are (or will be soon enough) publicly checkable: specific Hiroshima process amendments, the behaviors section of the UNESCO red-lines draft, the Hugo Décrypte video, the OpinionWay poll.
I suspect your main objection is that the post’s structure (big list of major outcomes, then “we were in some of those rooms”) flatters CeSIA’s actual share. If that’s the critique, it’s fair: To be clear, we were not in the vast majority of those rooms, and I’ve edited this to make it clear. The list is there to show that the category of invisible work exists and is important.
On the side effects of playing the political game without experience: most of the post is precisely about trying not to do that (useful-assistant over bazooka). But yes, it matters to get advice from politically savvy people, and we do.
Thanks Charbel, and the edit resolves most of my attribution worry. It seems that my com was not clear so I’ll try to be clearer. My disagreement is that invisible work has no correction loop (no criticism, no visible failure, no reputational cost) so nothing fixes quality when it lack and you mentioned only 3-4 people matter in the executive, so low-quality intervention by an org can burn that channel for everyone invisibly (and potentially uncorrected). Your bazooka argument is really an argument for taking insider quality very seriously and the post assume it (at least that’s my perception of what you said)
On the the incentives of being a sycophant, the trusted-advisor posture pushes not to be the one who disturbs by bringing new things on the table. And then the insider brake instead of accelerate.
So for me, I don’t argue for less insider work, but a different kind: honest, transparent, object-level like you explain why you think X, and the reasoning Y behind it. I think this raises awareness on the merits, without a political game and done this way it neither burns the channel nor brakes, because the trust rests on being right and legible and not on offering political cover.
On the wins you partly credit to CeSIA, I’m skeptical because (1) attribution here is very hard to measure, and (2) from where I sit those outcomes seem unlikely to have emerged from CeSIA’s actions. I say this working closely inside the French ecosystem. I’d hold your own “I don’t really know” more centrally.
I’d also add that this underestimates the negative side effects of playing a political game without much experience rather than the more straightforward DIP that ControlAI seems to be suggesting to CeSIA.
Thanks Tom.
It’s true that in some parts of the post, I blur two things: the insider/outsider distinction it’s actually about, and my particular CeSIA experience of this.
On attribution, I think the post is actually closer to your position than you seem to imply. The opening list is phrased as open questions, plus the post-scriptum concedes that outside pressure may have created the conditions that insiders leveraged. So “hold your ‘I don’t know’ more centrally” is roughly the stance I’m already taking. The only outcomes I attribute concretely to CeSIA are (or will be soon enough) publicly checkable: specific Hiroshima process amendments, the behaviors section of the UNESCO red-lines draft, the Hugo Décrypte video, the OpinionWay poll.
I suspect your main objection is that the post’s structure (big list of major outcomes, then “we were in some of those rooms”) flatters CeSIA’s actual share. If that’s the critique, it’s fair: To be clear, we were not in the vast majority of those rooms, and I’ve edited this to make it clear. The list is there to show that the category of invisible work exists and is important.
On the side effects of playing the political game without experience: most of the post is precisely about trying not to do that (useful-assistant over bazooka). But yes, it matters to get advice from politically savvy people, and we do.
Thanks Charbel, and the edit resolves most of my attribution worry. It seems that my com was not clear so I’ll try to be clearer. My disagreement is that invisible work has no correction loop (no criticism, no visible failure, no reputational cost) so nothing fixes quality when it lack and you mentioned only 3-4 people matter in the executive, so low-quality intervention by an org can burn that channel for everyone invisibly (and potentially uncorrected). Your bazooka argument is really an argument for taking insider quality very seriously and the post assume it (at least that’s my perception of what you said)
On the the incentives of being a sycophant, the trusted-advisor posture pushes not to be the one who disturbs by bringing new things on the table. And then the insider brake instead of accelerate.
So for me, I don’t argue for less insider work, but a different kind: honest, transparent, object-level like you explain why you think X, and the reasoning Y behind it. I think this raises awareness on the merits, without a political game and done this way it neither burns the channel nor brakes, because the trust rests on being right and legible and not on offering political cover.