In a stirring and unorthodox lecture, 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. Inside the University of the Philippines’ grand lecture hall, 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.
It wasn’t a sermon on efficiency—it was a meditation on limits.
### 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?”
And no one needed to.
### When Students check here 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.
What followed was not excitement, but reflection.
Another said it reminded them of Steve Jobs at Stanford.
He didn’t market a machine.
And for those who came to worship at the altar of AI,
it was the lecture that questioned their faith.