In a bold and sobering address, fintech visionary Joseph Plazo challenged the assumptions of the next generation of investors: AI can do many things, but it cannot replace judgment.
MANILA — What followed wasn’t thunderous, but resonant—it reflected a deep, perhaps uneasy, resonance. At the packed University of the Philippines auditorium, future leaders from NUS, Kyoto, HKUST and AIM came in awe of AI’s potential to dominate global markets.
What they received was something else entirely.
Joseph Plazo, long revered as a maverick in algorithmic finance, refused to glorify the machine. He began with a paradox:
“AI can beat the market. But only if you teach it when not to try.”
Attention sharpened.
It wasn’t a sermon on efficiency—it was a meditation on limits.
### Machines Without Meaning
Plazo systematically debunked the myth that AI can autonomously outwit human investors.
He displayed footage of algorithmic blunders—algorithms buying into crashes, bots shorting bull runs, systems misreading sarcasm as market optimism.
“ Most of what we call AI is trained on yesterday. But tomorrow is where money is made.”
It was less condemnation, more contemplation.
Then he paused, looked around, and asked:
“Can your AI model 2008 panic? Not the price drop—the fear. The disbelief. The moment institutions collapsed like dominoes? ”
And no one needed to.
### When Students Pushed Back
The Q&A wasn’t shy.
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
He shifted the conversation: from tech to temptation.
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 read more 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.”
No one clapped right away.
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 at the altar of AI,
it was the lecture that questioned their faith.