Just as many had predicted, Time magazine once again took some liberties with its annual “Person of the Year” issue.
Besides blocking users from reading its website with an AI chatbot, the magazine anointed the “architects of AI” as its most important visionaries of 2025, eschewing the definition of “person” yet again.
The eyeroll-inducing announcement was met with plenty of incredulity, especially considering the astronomical amount of money being spent on building out data centers, their enormous carbon footprint, and a whole litany of other ethical conundrums that the embrace of generative AI has spawned.
One online group was particularly irked by Time‘s announcement. As author Parker Molloy pointed out on Bluesky, those who bet on who would be named “Person of the Year” on prediction markets were absolutely furious — perfectly illustrating the risks of throwing money at unregulated gambling websites.
“Someone please explain to me how this is not a trick?” one user complained after betting on billionaire Elon Musk on Kalshi. “Person of the year is a singular title…”
“This is actually so freaking stupid,” another user seethed.
Other users who had bet on “AI” argued that Kalshi owed them money.
“This pretty clearly should’ve resolved to yes,” one user wrote. “If you bought AI, reach out to Kalshi support because ‘AI’ is literally on the cover and in the title ‘Architects of AI.’”
Many argued it was stupid to bet on “AI,” given the purpose of Time‘s annual issue.
“Stop complaining AI didn’t win,” one user wrote. “AI was never going to win because of the technicality that Time would never state AI as ‘person of the year’ and would rather be ‘technology’ or some variant.”
The bet turned out to be a major driver, generating just shy of $20 million worth of bets since early November 2024. The clear frontrunner for most of the year was Musk, who was overtaken by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang following his pro-AI rallying cry during a keynote in Washington, DC.
“AI,” meanwhile, steadily rose in trading since May.
“If AI is Time Person of the Year for 2025, then the market resolves to Yes,” reads the rules summary. “If there is no Person of the Year (and instead many variations thereof, e.g. Entertainer of the Year, Hero of the Year), that is not encompassed in the Payout Criterion. If multiple persons win, all persons that are listed are encompassed within the Payout Criterion.”
A similar bet on Polymarket saw most money going towards NBA legend LeBron James and president Donald Trump. The comments section also turned into a flame war, with unhappy users accusing the site of a “rug pull.”
“Such a scam,” one Polymarket user complained. “If i would of known a new option would of been added that says effectively AI or EVERYONE ELSE I would of chosen that.”
Perhaps users on prediction market websites should’ve known better. Time magazine has a long history of making controversial choices for its splashy annual cover. Besides picking infamous leaders like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin in 1938 and 1939, respectively, the publication has also taken plenty of liberties in the past, stretching the definition of “person” to an extreme degree.
In 1960, for instance, it chose “US scientists,” which is arguably an even vaguer descriptor than the “architects of AI.” In 2006, it chose “you,” an infuriating and borderline nonsensical pick that was meant to recognize people who created user-generated content on then-ascendant social platforms like MySpace and YouTube.
Meanwhile, users on social media gleefully watched as prediction market users were having a meltdown.
“I can’t believe an unregulated gambling market let people bet frivolously and then took all their money,” one Bluesky user wrote.
More on Time‘s Person of the Year: Time Magazine Deploys AI “Ask Me Anything” Box That Covers Up Its Actual Journalism and Can’t Be Closed
