Part 1: When the AI Leaderboard Just Doesn’t Look Like You
Interrogating Time’s 100 Most Influential People in AI 2025 List
A Top 100 list might read like entertainment, but in reality it works a lot like an algorithm. It ranks, sorts, and decides who rises to the top of our collective attention. In the same way Google decides which links we see first, TIME decides which people get to represent “influence in AI.” And, just as with technical algorithms, the design choices behind these lists matter. They reflect the interests of their creators — in this case, a Western media institution — more than they reflect the messy, global, diverse reality of AI itself.
This is Part 1 of a 2 Part series from (margin*notes)^squared. And its an important topic, so I’m making this series free for everyone. (Part 2 can be found here.)
What the TIME100 AI 2025 list says about power, representation, and who gets to shape our technological future
I’ve always been curious why we’re so fascinated by “Top 10” or “Top 100” lists. Maybe it’s because they give our brains shortcuts (or because we secretly hope to find our own names in there?!). More seriously, they simplify overwhelming choices, create a sense of order, and feed our desire to know “the best.” Think about the last time you googled “top 10 places to eat in Bangkok” or “top 10 beaches in the Philippines” or “top 10 co-working spaces in Jakarta.” It gives you great ideas that push you into planning your evening, your holiday, or where you decide to work.
In short, they’re easy to process: we get a snapshot, a headline, a sense of certainty. And we get nudged.
A few days ago I learned about TIME Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in AI list when I saw contacts on LinkedIn celebrating some of the women and people from the global majority who were included. I was happy to see the margins come toward the center.
So, of course, I became intrigued. Who else is on it?!
Then a thought struck me: isn’t a list like this basically a kind of algorithm?
Like search engines, lists rank and surface information. They tell us who counts, who gets visibility, whose influence matters, and who should shape our imaginations.
TIME’s editors might not use machine learning, but their editorial process still creates a ranking system that amplifies some voices while leaving others invisible. And just like commercial algorithms, these lists aren’t neutral, but rather reflect the values and blind spots of their creators.
This is where things get complicated.
This list goes beyond just telling us who’s influential. It actively reshapes our collective understanding of influence in AI. It tells a story. And stories inspire. They nudge.
This was the third annual iteration of the TIME100 AI list. With this list, the editors aimed “to show how the direction AI travels will be determined not by machines but by people — innovators, advocates, artists, and everyone with a stake in the future of this technology.”
They announced: “Our aspiration for TIME is to be your trusted guide through this transformation.”
Trust. Guide. Two very powerful words.
I wondered what our guides had in store for us. What mental shortcuts have they provided to help us understand who is shaping this technology from which no one on the plant can opt out. TIME sorts them as leaders, innovators, shapers, and thinkers. The algorithm at work. Sorting.
Who now can access the added influence and power of being included “on the list”? Who do they represent? Who gets to sit at the top of the class in guiding our technological future? Who will have new opportunities as a result of being “on the list”? And do they look like us?
So, I fired up my spreadsheet – I mean, what else would you think I’d do?!
What I discovered concerned me at first. The deeper I got, the more disturbed I became. It seemed our “trusted guide through this transformation” kinda forgot about the Rest^ of Us.
I ran the numbers after conducting my own open source research. It wasn’t perfect – not everyone’s information is publicly available and some mistakes may have been made around gender and nationalities and citizenships – though every effort was made to search exhaustively for accurate information. Still, none of the variations that might arise as a result would change the overall picture.
What emerged was a narrowing of the story of AI to a Global North, male-dominated, predominately American narrative.
To be clear: this isn’t about dismissing the people who were named. Many are doing important, groundbreaking work. (Especially the people my LinkedIn friends were celebrating.)
But it is about recognizing that these lists — like algorithms — have power. By failing to represent the world as it truly is, they don’t just mirror inequality, they risk magnifying it. When that happens, these “Top 100” lists stop being harmless entertainment and start functioning like cultural algorithms of their own: shaping power, defining narratives, and reinforcing a kind of digital colonialism.
When a list like this over-represents the U.S., the Global North, billionaires, and men, it not just tells us who’s influential, it reshapes our collective imagination of who can be influential. That’s power. And when wielded carelessly, it entrenches what I’d call a kind of digital colonialism, where the North speaks for the world.
Who gets to be ‘influential in AI?
TIME100 AI 2025 is positioned as a celebration of the people from around the world shaping one of the most transformative technologies of our age. And yes, there are some truly exceptional people on the list doing exceptional things.
But when I unpacked the data, a pattern emerged: the list doesn’t reflect the world. Not at all. It doesn’t represent the citizens most impacted by AI. And it certainly doesn’t capture the kaleidoscope of people imagining, critiquing, building and governing frontier technology’s future – the leaders, innovators, shapers, and thinkers.
Here’s are some of the topline findings from the analysis:
61% American (of 97 whose nationalities are known)
74% Global North
67% (at least) live and work in the United States
70% male
45% white and male
20% billionaires (all men)
Most concentrated in private tech and elite academic institutions
Put another way, this list doesn’t just spotlight who matters in AI — it defines the mental shortcut about what matters: wealth, corporate scale, proximity to Silicon Valley.
And being a boy.
And being white.
Part Two —>
In the next and final part of this series we’ll dig deeper into diversity of the list (complete with pie charts and graphs!). Again: this isn’t about dismissing the people who were named. As I said, many are doing important, groundbreaking work. This is about how lists, this list, reflects our communities, our lived realities, and what aspects of the journey toward our AI future are the most important to us, especially from the margins.
And I can assure you, adtech is not top of mind.
Please share your thoughts in the comments! And stay tuned for Part 2 coming in a few days.
UPDATE: Part 2 can be found here.
because the non-whites can't build great products otherwise they would feature here also. This is meritocracy. No awards for participation and diversity only.