In a stirring and unorthodox lecture, AI trading pioneer Joseph Plazo confronted the beliefs held by the academic elite: the future still belongs to humans who can think.
MANILA — What followed wasn’t thunderous, but resonant—it reflected a deep, perhaps uneasy, resonance. At the packed University of the Philippines auditorium, future leaders from NUS, Kyoto, HKUST and AIM expected a triumphant ode to AI’s dominance in finance.
What they received was something else entirely.
Joseph Plazo, long revered as a maverick in algorithmic finance, 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.”
Attention sharpened.
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 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?”
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 surrendered their judgment to the machine.
“This is not evolution. It’s abdication.”
But he clarified: he’s not anti-AI.
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.
“Automation here is almost sacred,” noted Dr. Anton Leung, AI ethicist. “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.
“We don’t just need AI coders—we need AI philosophers.”
Final Words
The ending wasn’t applause bait. It was a get more info 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.
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.