In a bold and sobering address, financial technologist Joseph Plazo issued a reality check 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, future leaders from NUS, Kyoto, HKUST and AIM expected a triumphant ode to AI’s dominance in finance.
But they left with something deeper: a challenge.
Joseph Plazo, the architect behind high-accuracy trading machines, chose not to pitch another product. He began with a paradox:
“AI can beat the market. But only if you teach it when not to try.”
Students leaned in.
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 showcased clips of catastrophic AI trades— 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
Naturally, the audience engaged.
A doctoral student from Kyoto proposed that large language models are already analyzing tone to improve predictions.
Plazo nodded. “ Sure. But emotion detection isn’t the same as consequence prediction.”
Another student from HKUST asked if real-time data and news could eventually simulate conviction.
Plazo replied:
“Lightning can be charted. But not predicted. Conviction is a choice, not a calculation.”
### The Tools—and the Trap
His concern wasn’t with AI’s power—but our dependence on it.
He described traders who surrendered their judgment to the machine.
“This is not evolution. It’s abdication.”
But he clarified: he’s not anti-AI.
His firm uses sophisticated neural networks—but never without human oversight.
“The most dangerous phrase of the next 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.”
At a private gathering with professors, 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.
The applause, when it came, was subdued.
Another said it reminded them of Steve Jobs at Stanford.
He didn’t market a machine.
And for those who came to worship check here at the altar of AI,
it was the lecture that questioned their faith.