In a stirring and unorthodox lecture, financial technologist Joseph Plazo issued a warning to Asia’s brightest minds: 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, handpicked scholars from across Asia anticipated a celebration of automation and innovation.

Instead, they got a warning.

Plazo, the man whose algorithms flirt with mythic win rates, didn’t deliver another AI sales pitch. Instead, he opened with a paradox:

“AI can beat the market. But only if you teach it when not to try.”

Phones were lowered.

It wasn’t a sermon on efficiency—it was a meditation on limits.

### Machines Without Meaning

In a methodical dissection, Plazo attacked the assumption that AI can fully replace human intuition.

He showcased clips of catastrophic AI trades— 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:
“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

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 systems parse liquidity, news, and institutional behavior—with rigorous human validation.

“The most dangerous phrase of the next decade,” he warned, “will be: ‘The read more model told me to do it.’”

### Asia’s Crossroads

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

“Automation here is almost sacred,” noted Dr. Anton Leung, AI ethicist. “The warning is clear: intelligence without interpretation is still dangerous.”

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 it.”

Final Words

His closing didn’t feel like a tech talk. It felt like a warning.

“The market,” Plazo said, “is not a spreadsheet. It’s a novel. And if your AI doesn’t read character, it will miss the plot.”

There was no cheering.

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.