In a bold and sobering address, 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 carried the weight of contemplation. Within the echoing walls of UP’s lecture forum, handpicked scholars from across Asia anticipated a celebration of automation and innovation.
But they left with something deeper: a challenge.
Joseph Plazo, the architect behind high-accuracy trading machines, 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.
This wasn’t a coronation of AI, but a reckoning.
### Machines Without Meaning
His talk unraveled a common misconception: that data-driven machines can foresee financial futures alone.
He showcased clips of catastrophic AI trades— 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 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?”
And no one needed to.
### When Students Pushed Back
Naturally, the audience engaged.
A doctoral student from Kyoto proposed that large language models are already analyzing tone to improve predictions.
Plazo nodded. “ Sure. But emotion detection isn’t the same as consequence prediction.”
Another student from HKUST asked if real-time data website 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 do it.’”
### Asia’s Crossroads
The message hit home in Asia, where automation is often embraced uncritically.
“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
The ending wasn’t applause bait. It was a challenge.
“The market,” Plazo said, “isn’t just numbers. It’s a story. And if your AI doesn’t read character, it won’t understand the story.”
No one clapped right away.
The applause, when it came, was subdued.
Another said it reminded them of Steve Jobs at Stanford.
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.