TIME’s Choice of AI for Person of the Year Sparks Debate
TIME magazine’s selection of generative artificial intelligence as its 2023 Person of the Year is more than a recognition of technological advancement; it ignites a discussion about leadership and influence in today’s society. By choosing AI, particularly as personified through OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, TIME highlights an evolving narrative on what defines an impactful figure in a rapidly changing world.
The decision drew immediate backlash from critics. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, expressed dissatisfaction on social media, asserting, “We all know the ACTUAL Person of the Year was Charlie Kirk.” This sentiment resonates with many who believe that TIME overlooked real individuals actively shaping political and cultural discussions. Kirk’s pointed response encapsulates a broader critique of TIME’s editorial choices and its perceived detachment from the public sphere.
TIME’s Rationale
TIME justifies its selection by stating that the Person of the Year reflects influence, regardless of whether it comes from a person or a concept. The magazine underscores that influence can manifest in various forms and that AI’s impact, spearheaded by Altman, has reshaped industries and conversations. Altman’s leadership during a year marked by high drama at OpenAI—including a brief firing—demonstrates the complex dynamics within the tech industry. The rapid acceptance and proliferation of AI tools like ChatGPT, which gained over 100 million users shortly after launch, illustrates a powerful shift in societal engagement with technology.
TIME’s statement that “there’s nothing artificial about how this intelligence is shaping our world” serves to underscore AI’s significant role in contemporary influence. It positions AI not merely as a tool but as a force that impacts decision-making at various levels.
Critique of AI’s Recognition
Yet, many critics argue that such recognition should be reserved for figures who exert accountability and engage actively with the public. Kirk’s discourse serves as a prime example of this perspective, advocating for leaders who are physically present, addressing pressing issues like education and immigration. Kirk’s activism throughout 2023 reflects a traditional model of influence that is deeply rooted in grassroots efforts and direct interaction with the citizenry.
TIME’s decision to overlook high-profile figures such as Donald Trump further amplifies the critique that the magazine is shifting its focus away from established political influence toward what some perceive as a preference for emerging, less tangible subjects.
Who Else Was in the Running?
The shortlist of candidates, which included cultural icons like Taylor Swift and noteworthy political figures from various fields, illustrates the diverse landscape of influence considered by TIME. While AI took the top spot, figures such as the Hollywood strikers and political actors in China and Russia were also acknowledged, highlighting a range of impactful narratives. However, the absence of prominent conservative activists from this list raises questions about the inclusivity of TIME’s definition of influence in contemporary society.
The Shifting Definition of Influence
TIME maintains that its choice reflects a changing landscape of influence—one that sees evidence of impact through technological acceleration rather than through personal interaction. Kelly Conniff, a lead on the Person of the Year project, pointed out how AI’s rapid development exerts greater influence over policy debates than many individuals could. This raises fundamental questions about our societal values: Are leadership and impact now defined by digital advancements rather than tangible human interaction?
The Biden administration’s response includes efforts to regulate AI, signaling a recognition of its growing presence and importance. Executive actions aimed at establishing ethical guidelines for AI development underscore how governments are not just passive observers but active participants in navigating the implications of such technologies.
Kirk’s Higher Standard of Influence
Proponents of Kirk’s viewpoint believe his grassroots activism aligns more closely with a realistic notion of influence—one founded on community engagement and advocacy. Kirk’s initiatives in 2023, like “TPUSA Faith,” sought to mobilize young voters and shape discussions within conservative circles about border policy, education, and religious freedom. Supporters assert that these efforts reflect the type of influence that matters most in a democratic society, contrasting sharply with the abstract nature of AI.
While critics label Kirk’s followers as engaging in partisanship, the real conversation lies in the definition of influence itself. This discussion questions the legitimacy of TIME’s choice and its implications for how society views power and authority.
Conclusion: The Message Behind TIME’s Choice
In selecting AI as its Person of the Year, TIME signals a significant shift within how influence is conceptualized. While the magazine elevates the discussion surrounding innovation, many see it as a departure from recognizing the people at the forefront of societal debates. Kirk’s challenge—divulged through a simple tweet—provokes a deeper inquiry: What kinds of leadership will define our future, and who ultimately decides what qualifies as influential?
The juxtaposition between Kirk’s tangible activism and AI’s abstract representation of influence can alter the collective understanding of leadership in contemporary discourse. TIME’s decision not only reflects its view on modern power dynamics but also raises profound questions about accountability and the nature of influence in a world increasingly driven by technology.
"*" indicates required fields
