During the match between Flamengo and Botafogo, with Flamengo winning 1-0 and with a goal in the last minute, my impression was that I had already seen the game. Flamengo was identical to the match against Vasco.
The confrontation between Flamengo and Botafogo was so bad that I took a nap. When I woke up, I didn’t know if it was Fla x Bota or Fla x Vasco. Botafogo and Vasco used the same strategy against Flamengo. Each of the three teams, in both games, repeated the positioning, the way of acting, and made the same plays.
In the 60s, Brazilian teams and players were the most creative, surprising, ball artists, while the Europeans were more disciplined, repetitive. Today, especially in comparison with the English, it is the opposite. The English surprise each game, they change the way they play and often achieve spectacular turnarounds on the scoreboard, while in Brazil the plays and strategies are generally the same. Little is created, almost everything is repeated.
In Brazil there is an enormous adoration for sports science, as if the truth were unique, as if football were not a game with so many uncertainties. I repeat, knowledge goes far beyond information, and wisdom goes far beyond knowledge.
What would artificial intelligence say after receiving thousands of technical and tactical information, before and during the matches between Flamengo and Vasco and between Flamengo and Botafogo? Would she have the same impression as the commentators? Would artificial intelligence perceive the emotional and subjective details of a football game?
One thing is right. The artificial intelligence’s opinions would not have grammatical errors or be influenced by analysts’ mood swings.
Would artificial intelligence understand the buzzwords, commonplaces and terminologies used by football coaches and commentators, such as “the disruptive wingers” mentioned by Tite when he referred to dribbling and fast wingers? Would artificial intelligence understand words and expressions such as last third of the field, builder’s side, high, low marking and many others?
People are progressively more dependent on technology and cell phones. I suspect I don’t have the computer gene. If it weren’t for the help of those near and dear to me, I would be kicked off the planet. Despite my genetics and my mental laziness, I know the enormous importance that technology has brought to science, personal development and society, as well as being a great distraction, as long as it doesn’t turn into an addiction, a compulsion, the which is common today.
Does technology make human beings happier? I think not. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with the existential anguish of human beings. Dependence on technology is a reality of no return. The bad thing is the human being’s anxiety in wanting to identify with the machine, incorporate it, as if it were part of the body and mind. That’s what happens when someone creates a character and the two become the same person.
Science does not explain everything, which leaves human beings helpless in the face of the mysteries, dangers and finiteness of life. In a moment in the film “Zorba the Greek”, Zorba, a rude man in love with life, asks his boss, a cultured and sad man, what books (today it would be Google) say about life after death. ? The boss replies: “Books have no answers.” Zorba retorts: “Then your books are useless.”
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.