In a rare keynote that blended technical acumen with philosophical depth, famed AI strategist Joseph Plazo confronted the beliefs held by the academic elite: judgment and intuition remain irreplaceable.

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.”

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 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:
“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 waited for AI signals as gospel.

“This is not 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.”

In a follow-up faculty roundtable, Plazo urged for AI literacy—not just in code, but in consequence.

“Teach them to think with AI, not just build read more it.”

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.

They stood up—quietly.

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.