Editorial update (16 July 2026): This article records the original Research concept. The current offer is narrower and evidence-gated: Tactics Journal Research monitors 200+ multilingual sources daily, then publishes English reports only when a concrete tactical mechanism has a traceable source trail, credible support or explicit single-source limits, counterevidence and limits, and editorial approval. There is no daily report quota. Free signup includes Opinion and Research launch and access updates—not paid full reports. Paid Research is planned annual-first at $144/year ($12/month billed annually), with a $15 monthly fallback. Checkout and launch timing remain unconfirmed pending merchant-of-record approval.

I dropped everything to research agentic AI for three months because I saw the impact agents will have on individuals. Not chatbots. Agents. Autonomous systems that work for you, day and night, at near-zero cost. I built one for football.

Tactics Journal Research does three things.

It monitors more football content than any person could. More than 200 multilingual sources are monitored daily: articles, press conferences, podcasts, coaching interviews, and analysis across leagues, languages, and cultures. German tactical blogs, Portuguese analysis, and press conferences can all contribute to a candidate finding.

Reports are currently published in English. They retain the source context and limits needed to evaluate ideas that began outside the English-language discussion.

It finds ideas that haven’t crossed over yet. Not by reading headlines. By classifying sources as frontier or mainstream, then looking for ideas circulating in smaller, independent sources before they show up in major coverage. Ideas backed by multiple sources across different football cultures score higher. Single-source weak signals get penalized.

It publishes evidence-qualified research reports. A full report publishes only after it identifies a concrete tactical mechanism; provides a traceable source trail and credible support or corroboration, or states explicit single-source limits; addresses counterevidence and other limits; and passes editorial review. Monitoring happens daily, but publication does not follow a daily quota or time guarantee.

Opinion posts remain free. Paid Research is planned to include every full report as it publishes, the complete archive, source trails, counterevidence and limits, editorial review, and private subscriber RSS. Annual access is planned first at $144/year ($12/month billed annually), with a $15 monthly fallback. Checkout is not open and launch timing is not confirmed while merchant-of-record approval is pending.

Learn about Research and express interest.

Most people interact with AI through chatbots. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini. You ask a question, get an answer, then go apply it yourself. The work still falls on you.

Agents are different. You don’t ask them a question. You give them a job. Research, execution, testing, delivery. The tedious work runs in the background while you focus on the things that actually matter.

Two breakthroughs stopped me in my tracks.

OpenClaw by Peter Steingberger showed what autonomous agents look like when they act as a personal assistant, working unprovoked. Not waiting for a prompt. Just doing the work.

When you try OpenClaw, Hermes Agent, Zo Computer, Manus AI, Perplexity Computer, or Claude Cowork you see where the world is going. When you see things like Mission Control or Polsia you witness the power of building agents that work for you.

autoresearch by Andrej Karpathy showed something else: a small system for training LLMs where an AI could run experiments by itself. It made a change, tested it, checked whether the result improved, kept what worked, and discarded what didn’t. By morning, you had a trail of experiments and a better result. It was built for LLM training, but the loop itself can be adapted to other kinds of optimization.

The cost to build and run things like this is collapsing toward zero. The differentiator is no longer knowing how to build. It’s having the imagination and courage to create something.

Mark Cuban said it recently, “Software is dead because everything’s gonna be customized to your unique utilization.”

The generic tool era is ending. What replaces it is individuals building exactly what they need.

Even if you have no experience in coding, with tools like Codex and Claude Code, anyone can ship something. You are not behind if you start today. But there is no excuse anymore.

And if you don’t want to build anything, there will be someone ready to build it for free or at a lower cost.

This will bring changes for the Tactics Journal. There will be two arms: Opinion and Research.

Opinion will always be authored by me. I watch matches. I think. I write.

There are two types of LLM users: those who use it to learn everything, and those who use it so they don’t have to learn anything. I want to use it to enhance what I do every day.

When everything can be made self-made, what becomes scarce is the thing that can’t be generated. Human time. Human attention. The proof that a real person chose to spend their limited hours on something rather than everything else they could have done. A handwritten letter means more in a world where AI can write a perfect one instantly. The effort is the message. The opinion side of this site will always be me. My observations, my voice, my time.

The research side is an embodiment of what I think we should be paying attention to, tuned by me. I watch matches and write about what I see. The system reads everything I can’t and surfaces what I’d miss.

There are new breakthroughs, solutions, models, and ideas coming out every day. You need a full-time job just to keep up with it. But the trajectory is clear. The cost of intelligence is approaching zero. The cost of human attention and judgment is not.

I want to build platforms where agents can act unprovoked. Not waiting for a question. Just doing the work they were built to do.

The people who build these things for football, for journalism, for scouting, for anything will have an unfair advantage. Not because the technology is secret. Because they had the taste to know what to build and the initiative to build it before everyone else.