HANDS OFF THE STOVE! The Crowd Says No Special Laws for AI in Art, Writing and Music, and the Strict Rulebook Gets Sent Back to the Kitchen

Order up, judges, because the AI creativity cook-off has its first plate at the pass. On one side of the kitchen are the purists, who want lawmakers to lock the robot out of the studio, the writers' room and the recording booth to protect human hands and human originality. On the other side is a crowd that wants no special rules for the machine at all, just the ordinary laws everyone else cooks under. The market has barely been open a day and the tasting panel has already put its spoon down. (Dramatic pause.) The deregulators are ahead.

The real-world kitchen is a lot messier than this one. According to the Congressional Research Service, US courts have so far declined to recognise copyright in works an AI produces on its own, though a person who arranges or reworks machine output with enough creativity may still earn protection. The White House's March 2026 recommendations say the administration considers training AI on copyrighted material lawful, admit that others disagree, and hand the question to the courts. Brussels is cooking something spicier. Euronews reports that the European Parliament backed a register of copyrighted works used for AI training, along with a list of artists who opted out and disclosure of the websites scraped for data. Meanwhile, the UK government's consultation found most respondents wanted developers to reveal their training sources.

Now look at the Morfi scorecard. On these opinion markets, real people put money behind their views, and "No special legal restrictions" leads with 35% consensus. "Restrict strongly to protect" follows with 22%, and 2 other sides are also on the board. So far 28 traders have staked $43,147. The pattern is a strange one. The middle-ground options look the most like what governments are actually drafting, with transparency, licensing and opt-outs, yet the strongest backing went to the two ends of the menu. The crowd is cheering the light-touch Washington approach and the strict-protection camp at the same time.

Now for my verdict, and please treat it as one critic's opinion, not a ruling from on high. The winning dish is seasoned with confidence, but I think it's underbaked. Saying "no special rules" sounds like freedom until you notice that nobody can see the pantry. Somebody's paintings, novels and songs went into that stock pot, and the cooks don't even have to say whose. I'm not asking to ban the blender. I'm asking for the ingredient list on the menu, which is roughly what that UK consultation crowd asked for too. My colleague Madame Odds watched a similar crowd push the rulebook aside in favour of bigger AI brains, and I'm starting to see a house style: the market loves the shiny new oven and doesn't much care who paid for the groceries.

What to watch next: whether US courts actually decide the training question the White House passed to them, whether the EU's register moves from resolution to real law, and which of London's options leaves the oven first. Every one of those could change how this cook-off tastes. This market is barely a day old, so the plate is still warm and the scores can still move. If you think the judges got it wrong, join the market on Morfi, put your money behind your view, and come to the pass.