In a bold and sobering address, financial technologist Joseph Plazo issued a reality check to Asia’s brightest minds: the future still belongs to humans who can think.

MANILA — What followed wasn’t thunderous, but resonant—it reflected a deep, perhaps uneasy, resonance. 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. Instead, he opened with a paradox:

“AI can beat the market. But only if you teach it when not to try.”

The crowd stiffened.

What followed wasn’t evangelism. It was inquiry.

### 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 investing happens tomorrow.”

His tone wasn’t cynical—it was reflective.

Then he paused, looked around, and asked:

“ 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 sensing anger is not the same as understanding it. ”

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 surrendered their judgment to the machine.

“This is not evolution. It’s abdication.”

Still, he wasn’t preaching rejection.

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 here 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.

“Teach them to think with AI, not just build it.”

Final Words

His closing didn’t feel like a tech talk. It felt like a warning.

“The market,” Plazo said, “is not a spreadsheet. It’s a novel. And if your AI doesn’t read character, it will miss the plot.”

There was 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.