TIME honours Scarlett Johansson, Anil Kapoor for fighting against AI imitations on its TIME100 AI list

TIME Magazine just released the second edition of its TIME100 AI list, honouring 100 people from around the world who are influential in the world of AI. This year’s list features actors Scarlett Johansson and Anil Kapoor for their fights against unauthorised AI use of their likenesses.

The list includes regulators and anti-AI campaigners fighting to ensure non-consensual AI images and deepfakes cannot become commonplace, as well as the people behind the creation and spread of AI software, such as Google CEO Sundar Pichai, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

In its explanation on how it selected the people on its list, TIME juxtaposed the inclusion of Pichai and Merefith Whittaker, a former Google employee and critic of the company who has become one of the world’s most influential advocates for privacy, saying, “Our purpose in creating the TIME100 AI is to put leaders like Pichai and Whittaker in dialogue and to open up their views to TIME’s readers”.

Hollywood star Johansson’s very public feud with OpenAI sparked after she said she declined to be a voice of ChatGPT for “personal reasons” and the company came out with a voice that sounded “eerily similar” to hers.

Though the company claimed it was the voice of another actor, Johansson’s legal team approached the company to have the voice taken down. Despite sticking to their denials, OpenAI took down the voice bot.

TIME called her “the most prominent public figure in a rising contingent voicing concerns about the company’s growth and safety tactics”.

Kapoor’s inclusion in the list came after the Bollywood star won a case in the Delhi High Court against people using his voice, image, name or likeness to create merchandise or anything else, either for monetary gain or otherwise.

The court protected his “personality rights” and also recognised misuse of AI tools to create deepfakes and pornographic videos. TIME credits the ruling in his landmark case as paving the way for others to seek protection over their personality rights.