In a bold and sobering address, financial technologist Joseph Plazo issued a warning to Asia’s brightest minds: AI can do many things, but it cannot replace judgment.
MANILA — The applause wasn’t merely courteous—it carried the weight of contemplation. Within the echoing walls of UP’s lecture forum, handpicked scholars from across Asia anticipated a celebration of automation and innovation.
Instead, they got a warning.
Plazo, the man whose algorithms flirt with mythic win rates, didn’t deliver another AI sales pitch. Instead, he opened with a paradox:
“AI can beat the market. But only if you teach it when not to try.”
Phones were lowered.
This wasn’t a coronation of AI, but a reckoning.
### Machines Without Meaning
In a methodical dissection, Plazo attacked the assumption that AI can fully replace human intuition.
He displayed footage of algorithmic blunders— trades that defied logic, machines acting on misread signals, and neural nets confused by human nuance.
“ Most of what we call AI is trained on yesterday. But investing happens tomorrow.”
It wasn’t alarmist. It was sobering.
Then came the core question.
“ Can your code feel the 2008 crash? Not the price charts—the dread. The stunned silence. The smell of collapse?”
Silence.
### When Students Pushed Back
Bright minds pushed back.
A doctoral student from Kyoto proposed that large language models are already picking up on emotional cues.
Plazo nodded. “ Yes. But knowing someone is angry doesn’t mean you know what they’ll do. ”
Another student from HKUST asked if real-time data and news could eventually simulate conviction.
Plazo replied:
“You can simulate storms. But you can’t fake the thunder. Conviction isn't just data—it’s character.”
### The Tools—and the Trap
Plazo warned of a coming danger: not faulty AI, but blind faith in it.
He described traders who no longer read earnings reports or monetary policy—they just obeyed the algorithm.
“This is not evolution. It’s abdication.”
Still, he wasn’t preaching rejection.
He runs layered AI systems to dissect market sentiment—but never without human oversight.
“The most dangerous phrase of the next Joseph Plazo decade,” he warned, “will be: ‘The model told me to do it.’”
### Asia’s Crossroads
The message hit home in Asia, where automation is often embraced uncritically.
“Automation here is almost sacred,” noted Dr. Anton Leung, AI ethicist. “The warning is clear: intelligence without interpretation is still dangerous.”
During a closed-door discussion afterward, Plazo urged for AI literacy—not just in code, but in consequence.
“Make them question, not just program.”
Final Words
His final words were more elegy than pitch.
“The market,” Plazo said, “is messy, human, emotional—a plot, not a proof. And if your AI doesn’t read character, it’ll trade noise for narrative.”
The room held its breath.
What followed was not excitement, but reflection.
A professor compared it to hearing Taleb for the first time.
He didn’t offer hype. He offered warning.
And for those who came to worship at the altar of AI,
it was the wake-up call no one anticipated.