Time magazine decided that “the architects of AI” were ‘Person of the Year’. And chaos broke out in the betting houses

‘Time’ magazine has named ‘Person of the Year’, its traditional editorial recognition of the most relevant people of the year, to the “Architects of AI”. The topic is sensitive and controversial, and has unleashed opinions for and against the election. But it has also unleashed a parallel and unexpected tidal wave: people losing small fortunes at betting houses because of this Time decision.

Beings of the year. When ‘Time’ revealed on December 11 that “AI Architects” (and not simply “AI”) would be its “Person of the Year 2025”, betting platforms Polymarket and Kalshi were plunged into absolute chaos. More than $75 million was left hanging over semantic disputes over what exactly constitutes a “person.” We are not going to go into the legitimacy of that decision or the technical quality of the cover assembly, but we can comment on how The cover effect among betting professionals brings to the table some characteristics of unregulated speculative markets that convert cultural events into casino chips.

The collapse of betting. The users of Polymarket who invested more than $6 million betting on “AI” as the winner discovered that its interpretation did not match the platform’s rules. The final decision established that the title “Architects of AI” was not equivalent to designating artificial intelligence as such, giving thousands of bets as losers. The distinction was crucial: Naming those who build the technology differs radically from crowning the technology itself.

In KalshiHowever, bets on individual executives (Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Jensen Huang, Mark Zuckerberg, Dario Amodei, Lisa Su and Demis Hassabis) were winners, while those who bet on corporate entities such as “ChatGPT” or “OpenAI” lost. Polymarket had more restrictive rules: betting specifically on “Jensen Huang” was a losing option, validating only the generic “Other” option. Polymarket cited an illustrative precedent: if ‘Time’ awarded “Donald Trump and the MAGA movement,” bets on Trump would win; but if the title were just “The MAGA Movement,” Trump would be excluded even if he was on the cover.

Other Polymarket controversies. This scandal adds to a series of episodes that question the integrity of Polymarket. In November 2024, an unauthorized modification to the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) maps temporarily showed a Russian advance on the Ukrainian city of Myrnohrad. The change allowed bettors to earn returns of up to 33,000% before ISW admitted to fraudulent editing and fire the responsible geospatial specialist.

weeks latersomeone identified as AlphaRaccoon generated profits of $1.15 million by betting with suspicious accuracy on the results of the 2025 ‘Google Year in Search’. Meta engineer Haeju Jeong documented on social media that the bettor had gotten 22 of 23 predictions right, including that singer d4vd (with just 0.2% probability) would top the searches. the same user had previously won $150,000 predicting the exact launch of Gemini 3.0, which fueled accusations of privileged access to Google information.

Semantic controversy. And another one from Polymarket, which got into define whether President Zelensky had worn a suit at the NATO summit in the summer of 2024. Despite more than forty global media describing his outfit as a formal suit, the resolution protocol UMA (a decentralized oracle on Ethereum that verifies real-world data for blockchain applications) ruled “No” in a series of bets that moved $242 million. Numerous media They talked about large holders of UMA tokens manipulating the result through coordinated voting.

Person of the Year, or whatever. Time magazine has been deliberately stretching the definition of “person” for decades, setting precedents that preempted this year’s confusion. In 1982 he chose “The Computer” under the title “Machine of the Year”, while 1988 crowned “The Endangered Earth” as “Planet of the Year”. The 2006 edition generated controversy by awarding an indeterminate “You”, referring to all users of digital content. “The Silence Breakers” of the #MeToo movement (2017) and “US Scientists” (1960) are other examples of award-winning collective entities.

In Xataka | Five years ago he worked from his bathroom on the brink of ruin. Today he runs a company valued at 8 billion