inckley fox

Great answer, and makes perfect sense to me. It does beg the question whether AI is more dangerous when it's scuttling about to do a human's bidding, rather than setting its own objectives. We ask it to reach for the stars; it covers the earth's surface with solar panels. We ask it to kill rabies, and it kills all animals that can potentially acquire it. Maybe AI will be better at setting the task than we are, if that makes sense. On the other hand, I'm well aware that this is a gross simplification of the inherent risks (on my part). It's obviously much more messy than that. Still, a useful dilemma for sci-fi writers, perhaps. Maybe we have some on the forum, who knows!

I know in philosophical circles there's this question going on: does sentience presuppose compassion? I'm not sure, but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it (god, that sounds like something Google AI would say!).

Obama, Sanders and co are right to say this needs to be at the forefront of Democrat campaigning. The Trump-Xi summit should be the moment to address this properly and begin to form an international consensus, but he's going to resist that immensely. The good thing about the current furore is that much of the domestic AI-related US legislation - and a lot is being passed; 150 odd bills in recent times - will be out of his 'steady' hands, to quote Johnson. The downside is that it may all come too late, but from what I've read the likeliest outcome is, first up, smaller scale 'catastrophes' rather than straight to Armageddon. And, given his current stance and, conversely, given the reservations that the huge survivalist brigade that vote for him have about AI, this could well serve as the turning point we've all awaited. Why? Because lurches to fascism and populism never reverse unless those who support it pay a real, and dear, price. The moment they say: oh god, I fell for this, and now I'm ****ed. So if this leads to a moment in which countries work together in a way they've failed to in recent times, and Trumpism is truly exposed to those who back it most in a way that most severely affects them, then something positive could potentially come from disaster (with the proviso that we don't all die during the learning process). Because let's be honest, with or without AI, the love for extreme right-wing ideals is going to end in the worst imaginable form of disaster. History tells us that. But if it's a disaster which refocuses human attention and leads to effective regulation of something which isn't human, then it won't be all bad. In the meantime, as nuts as it sounds, keep stocked up on your dried food and water, and get yourself a battery radio. Because the chances of the 'lights going out', and worse, are going to be high in the days, weeks, months and years to come. What a shame, of course, that people will most probably have to learn (if they get the chance to learn, which I hope they will) the hard way.

If you lived where I live, you wouldn't touch him with a forty foot pole. He's made some baffling decisions and looked way, way out of his depth. For me, I'd like us to look at managers who are actually good at their jobs for once. He's had a mare at three of his six clubs and in two of his last three jobs, and even in his native tongue doesn't come across as a particularly sharp chap. I know it's tempting to go for managers who have managed high-profile clubs, especially when they're foreign, but I would honestly give this one a wide berth.

You have to wonder what would have happened if we'd developed him more last season instead of giving him a few matches till he signed on, then prioritising Skipp, Soumare, Winks, or bringing in loanees like Ramsey and Aribo. Perhaps we wouldn't be where we are now, and facing the prospect of selling him to keep the club afloat.

You're right about him fading, but I'd consider that first half more than 'a few moments'.

I think it's generally agreed in football that keepers organise their wall. And when a limp shot comes in, naturally they should save the shot. The defence was poor and that's been an issue for Martin throughout his career as a boss. While he's pulled off a good win there and deserves credit, I find it odd that you'd watch that particular game and exempt him from criticism for his ability to set up a defence.

I honestly don't get it, and never have, when people say he's a good talker. He comes across as self-indulgent, unsophisticated, self-pitying and easily flustered. I've never seen anything to suggest he's management material in any field. I'm amazed anyone has ever been kidded by him. When people spoke highly of his Lineker interview I watched it with an open mind and was utterly unimpressed. I pin all my hopes on there being something, unidentifiable to me, which makes him a competent manager, though his past record suggests there isn't. Like I've said before, though, I have been wrong in the past. I want him to do well too, of course. What sort of fan would I be otherwise? And I think we haven't quite seen enough to say that it's worth uprooting all of our pre-season team-building, only five league games in, in order to be rid of him. There's a degree here of having made our bed, and so on. But after those early results, and the last game - regardless of my feelings that instant returns are unlikely for a manager at this club - you have to say that his time could be short. After all, we're trying to sell the club as a sleeping giant, rather than as a substandard third tier side with mounting debts. That's going to be impossible if we don't pick it up very, very quickly.

Well, I'll give him a bit longer than most on here, but to me the 'hurt' that he was feeling in that interview seemed to be more about himself than it was about the club. He was seriously threatened about comments about his style rather than willing to articulately defend it. Instead he uses the word 'energy' a thousand times over, loosely blames our younger players, and points towards his past record (which I wouldn't, too much, if I were him) as cause for optimism. Of course, a win tomorrow and loads will forget their pessimism. But in the medium term, and even more so in the long term, the early signs aren't good at all. Still, I've been proven wrong many a time. Let's hope it happens again.

There are a lot of successful football managers who aren't massively bright so you never know. But he strikes me as exceptionally unintelligent. I hope he turns it round and, with that squad at this level, he might. Still, his pre-match was extraordinary for me. He seemed to be especially seething at the excellent, more searching questions by the female interviewer. I had to wonder whether he's a man who struggles with articulate women, because it clearly, visibly unsettled him. He took it extremely personally. To me, he looked like the archetype of someone who knows they've failed, and is ready to lash out at the world for failing to understand him. Even so, strange things can happen - but they have to happen very soon.

He does like the word 'energy', doesn't he? Seriously, count how often he says the word in his interview. It's remarkable.

You're right in that five games with a considerable turnover in players isn't enough. Other clubs who have experienced similar overhauls may be doing better now, but after ten games - still early doors - it's possible that they're not, irrespective of whether I expect that to be what happens. It is also perfectly possible that, as a result of Martin appreciating the gravity of the situation or maybe as a result of the players saying 'screw the boss, we're going to make sure we put in a performance and do what we need to do', that we beat Stockport. If, and of course it's a very big if, that happens then you'll see a similar knee-jerk reaction and people asking themselves whether Martin is at last on the right track. They would be as fickle as those who were happy to wait and see after Plymouth, but who thought he needed to go a few days later. You are also right to indicate that we'd have missed out on the O'Neill era and probably still been at Filbert Street if we'd listened to the voices in the boardroom, and among the fans, who'd wanted him gone after 12 weeks. The reason I disagreed with those people at the time was that our form had faltered near the end of McGhee's time and I agreed with him that we'd become one-dimensional, and that things were less rosy than they seemed. Well, we know things aren't rosy at the club right now, so it's normal that someone should be given time. Maybe, like me, you want to see him gone because you never wanted him in the first place, but the same principle has to apply regardless. That said, as another poster pointed out, there are some key differences. In addition, remember that being proactive worked out well for us with Sousa, and waiting worked out badly for us with Rodgers and Cifuentes. There are cases when it appeared to make no difference (Taylor, Cooper etc.) but it's fair to say that we can't afford to wait too long. One key and very distinct factor in this is that the club is up for sale. If KP can market it as a big FLC club on a one-year League One sabbatical then they'll get a half-decent price from reputable bidders, but that depends on us looking like we're on our way back up. If we're not, then we become practically worthless.

You're absolutely right. It's possible however that any fracturing comes in the very early stages, and some investment in the phoenix project comes from figures who quickly unify the club. For instance even if some of us look at AFC Leicester and say, 'no, it's full of the KPFC lot', if it's substantially backed by a Vardy, a Lineker, and gets a few big favourites on board, then we'll probably go where the momentum is. I'm sure some won't, but in time the successor club would emerge.

You could add Wycombe under Taylor to that in terms of the damage it did, but yes, I think there's a fair argument to say this is the worst result in our entire history.

The thread was always a little silly, with all due respect to the excellent poster responsible for it. There is a very good reason for the negativity, and fans getting pissed off 45-70 minutes into a game, after players have failed to turn up and the manager has set the team up in accordance with his own personal whims, as opposed to anything which might approximate an effective positive game-plan, is clearly not the reason for our woes. There is also a problem in football as a whole, which has especially impacted on us, whereby people don't understand what a tactically astute manager looks like. This confusion, where we're concerned, comes from the Sven and Pearson eras. And it carried on under Ranieri - an amazing motivator who was hailed by some as a great tactician - but whose players (and I have first hand knowledge of this) said he was confusing when it came to tactics, and whose success hinged on Shakespeare making sense of his often baffling instructions. More recently, managers are often hailed as tacticians just because they have a specific tactic, their own brand, which they live and die by. Enzo's time at Leicester, as successful as it was, was a carefully orchestrated stepping stone in his management career which, tactically speaking, established his brand. Cifuentes and, to a far greater degree, Martin, have been all about establishing their tactical brand. But a good tactician, as per Clough or Ferguson, is someone whose understanding of the game's nuances enables them to adapt and outwit opposition. Martin's inflexibility renders that impossible. The same went for Sousa, Puel and Marti. And yet people would consider these people better tactical thinkers than Pearson, who used four distinct formations, alternated between a possession-based game and a counter-attacking one, and frequently got his wingers to switch flank. Or O'Neill - deemed a footballing dinosaur by many - but who switched formations and playing styles throughout his career, in accordance with his squad and the opposition they faced. I think these misconceptions are part of the reason why people like Russell Martin, who have tried unsuccessfully to establish a brand, are wrongly considered more tactically astute, or 'progressive' (whatever that means) than the Pearsons and O'Neills, or even Fergusons, of the world.

Your comment about his sides 'going rogue' absolutely tallies with what I saw of them. And, as with Puel at Leicester, a disproportionate number of goals come late in the day, when tactics go out the window and you throw the kitchen sink at them. As much as Puel was ten times the manager Martin is, that still says a lot about their starting tactics.

Yes you did.

That's very hopeful. Good on you.

Yeah, I was willing to give him time if things went wrong today, but the scale, the nature of the defeat - and, as you indicate, his staggeringly poor reaction to it - indicate that he perhaps doesn't have the time I thought he had. If I could quantum leap into Top's position tomorrow then I'd fire BR in a heartbeat, because I never wanted him and he's clearly the wrong man for the role long-term (even if he might, at a real push, pull off the promotion short-term). But when you've pursued a manager for so long, placed so much stock in his brand of football at a time when the club needed to build bridges with fans, and you've preferred not to do that but rather to double-down, then you can't fire him after five matches. Even so, his position is increasingly untenable, especially if Top wishes to still attend games and not be massively harangued. And while I thought ten games, or fifteen, was a reasonable point at which to reflect, we have to start asking ourselves at what point things become so bad that they have to act sooner. We may already have reached that, I'm not sure. A loss at Stockport, and one win in six for title favourites, would surely do it if their aim is to sell the club as a PL/FLC club on a 1-2 year sabbatical, as opposed to a struggling, financially unsustainable third tier outfit It shows that, when a club is in such a critical moment, you get far less time for things to work out if you fly in the face of popular opinion. The Martin appointment looks increasingly suicidal. And, when you consider that this appointment feels like a continuation of a long-time obsession for Top (the original KP chairman, who backed Sousa over Pearson, then appointed Sven before his being replaced by his own father, then returning to the role and lumping for Rodgers, Cifuentes, Martin et al) you can only surmise that these are the death throes of Top's leadership. The point at which the whole of football recognises that he's an owner that managers, players, fans understand to be incompatible with any form of success.

The thing that strikes me most about him, above his obvious vanity, arrogance and ineptitude, is that he's not very articulate. Seriously, read back over his comments and you'll see he struggles to form a grammatical sentence. I don't think he's a bright chap at all.

His success doesn't help us, though, does it? He pursued the most short-term agenda imaginable (building a side around Faes, Vestergard, Pereira, Vardy; investing heavily - and beyond our means - in Winks, Coady, Mavididi etc.) to further his route to the top, with little concern for the financial repercussions or any of what came next. Neither his squad nor his playing style could have survived in the PL, with or without him. It had already been sussed in the Championship, where we didn't manage play-off form for the final quarter of the campaign. It's time we understood he wasn't an upward blip in our decline, but partly culpable for it. The decision-making at this club has been short-termist and misguided consistently for many years, and his cameo role was a symptom of this, rather than an exception to it. They say you judge a manager not only on his achievements, but also on what happens in the aftermath. By that measure, he was an outright disaster.

Enzo won the easiest promotion of all time. I don't think he did any more than Rodgers (Top's only other arguably okay appointment) to further any long-term project.

What a horrible interview that was.

Well, I wouldn't argue too much.

Yes, but that's going to happen with the younger players. And it's not as if everyone else is playing a blinder.