In a stirring and unorthodox lecture, AI trading pioneer Joseph Plazo issued a warning to 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. 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 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 displayed footage of algorithmic blunders— trades that defied logic, machines acting on misread signals, and neural nets confused by human nuance.

“ Most of what we call AI is trained on yesterday. But investing happens tomorrow.”

It wasn’t alarmist. It was sobering.

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:
“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 waited for AI signals as gospel.

“This is not get more info evolution. It’s abdication.”

Yet he made it clear: AI is a tool, not a compass.

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.

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.