In a rare keynote that blended technical acumen with philosophical depth, financial technologist Joseph Plazo issued a warning to the next generation of investors: judgment and intuition remain irreplaceable.
MANILA — The ovation at the end wasn’t routine—it echoed with the sound of reevaluation. At the packed University of the Philippines auditorium, students from Asia’s top institutions 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.”
Students leaned in.
What ensued was described by one professor as “a reality check.”
### Machines Without Meaning
His talk unraveled a common misconception: that data-driven machines can foresee financial futures alone.
He presented visual case studies of trading bots gone wrong— trades that defied logic, machines acting on misread signals, and neural nets confused by human nuance.
“Most models are just beautiful regressions of yesterday. But tomorrow is where money is made.”
It was less condemnation, more contemplation.
Then he delivered his punchline.
“ Can an algorithm simulate the disbelief of 2008? Not the price drop—the fear. The disbelief. The moment institutions collapsed like dominoes? ”
No one answered.
### When Students Pushed Back
The Q&A wasn’t shy.
A doctoral student from Kyoto proposed that large language models are already detecting sentiment and adjusting forecasts.
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:
“You can model lightning. But you don’t know when or where it’ll strike. Conviction isn’t math. It’s a stance.”
### The Tools—and the Trap
His concern wasn’t with AI’s power—but our dependence on it.
He described traders who waited for AI signals as gospel.
“This is not evolution. It’s abdication.”
But he clarified: he’s not anti-AI.
His systems parse liquidity, news, and institutional behavior—but humans remain in charge.
“The most dangerous phrase of the next decade,” he warned, “will be: ‘The model told me to do it.’”
### Asia’s Crossroads
The speech resonated especially in Asia, where tech optimism runs high.
“There’s a spiritual reverence for AI here,” said Dr. Anton Leung, an ethics professor from Singapore. “Plazo reminded us that even intelligence needs wisdom.”
At a private gathering with professors, Plazo urged for AI literacy—not just in code, but in consequence.
“We don’t just need AI coders—we need AI philosophers.”
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 will miss the plot.”
There was more info no cheering.
They stood up—quietly.
A professor compared it to hearing Taleb for the first time.
Plazo didn’t sell a vision.
And for those who came to worship at the altar of AI,
it was the sermon they didn’t expect—but needed to hear.