WHAT THE MACHINES STILL CAN'T DO: JOSEPH PLAZO’S HARD TRUTHS FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF INVESTORS ON THE BOUNDARIES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

What the Machines Still Can't Do: Joseph Plazo’s Hard Truths for the Next Generation of Investors on the Boundaries of Artificial Intelligence

What the Machines Still Can't Do: Joseph Plazo’s Hard Truths for the Next Generation of Investors on the Boundaries of Artificial Intelligence

Blog Article

In a keynote address that fused engineering insights with emotional intelligence, AI trading pioneer Joseph Plazo issued a reality check to Asia’s brightest minds: the future still belongs to humans who can think.

MANILA — What followed wasn’t thunderous, but resonant—it echoed with the sound of reevaluation. At the packed University of the Philippines auditorium, students from Asia’s top institutions came in awe of AI’s potential to dominate global markets.

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.”

Students leaned in.

This wasn’t a coronation of AI, but a reckoning.

### Machines Without Meaning

Plazo systematically debunked the myth that AI can autonomously outwit human investors.

He presented visual case studies of trading bots gone wrong—algorithms buying into crashes, bots shorting bull runs, systems misreading sarcasm as market optimism.

“ Most of what we call AI is trained on yesterday. But tomorrow is where money is made.”

His tone wasn’t cynical—it was reflective.

Then he paused, looked around, and asked:

“Can your AI model 2008 panic? 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 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 systems parse liquidity, news, and institutional behavior—with rigorous human validation.

“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.

“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 more info 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.

Report this page