In a keynote address that fused engineering insights with emotional intelligence, financial technologist Joseph Plazo issued a warning to the next generation of investors: AI can do many things, but it cannot replace judgment.

MANILA — The applause wasn’t merely courteous—it carried the weight of contemplation. 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.”

Attention sharpened.

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— 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.”

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 get more info detecting sentiment and adjusting forecasts.

Plazo nodded. “ Yes. But knowing someone is angry doesn’t mean you know what they’ll do. ”

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.”

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

In Asia—where AI is lionized—Plazo’s tone was a jolt.

“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’ll trade noise for narrative.”

The room held its breath.

What followed was not excitement, but reflection.

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.