In a rare keynote that blended technical acumen with philosophical depth, 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 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
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 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
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 simulate storms. But you can’t fake the thunder. Conviction isn't just data—it’s character.”
### The Tools—and the Trap
Plazo warned of a coming danger: not faulty AI, but blind faith in it.
He described traders who no longer click here read earnings reports or monetary policy—they just obeyed the algorithm.
“This is not evolution. It’s abdication.”
Yet he made it clear: AI is a tool, not a compass.
He runs layered AI systems to dissect market sentiment—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 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. “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.
It wasn’t about the tech. It was the tone.
He didn’t offer hype. He offered warning.
And for those who came to worship at the altar of AI,
it was the wake-up call no one anticipated.