For Christmas I received an intriguing gift from a pal - my really own "very popular" book.

"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (great title) bears my name and my picture on its cover, and it has glowing evaluations.

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a few easy triggers about me provided by my buddy Janet.

It's a fascinating read, and very funny in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is somewhere in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It mimics my chatty style of composing, but it's likewise a bit repetitive, and extremely verbose. It might have exceeded Janet's prompts in looking at data about me.

Several sentences start "as a leading innovation journalist ..." - cringe - which could have been scraped from an .

There's likewise a strange, repeated hallucination in the type of my cat (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on almost every page - some more random than others.

There are lots of companies online offering AI-book composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I called the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, given that rotating from putting together AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The firm uses its own AI tools to produce them, based on an open source big language model.

I'm not asking you to buy my book. Actually you can't - just Janet, who created it, can buy any more copies.

There is presently no barrier to anybody creating one in any person's name, consisting of stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, developed by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is planned as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get sold even more.

He hopes to expand his range, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - selling AI-generated products to human customers.

It's likewise a bit scary if, like me, fakenews.win you write for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to generate, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound similar to me.

Musicians, wiki.monnaie-libre.fr authors, artists and actors worldwide have revealed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then produce comparable material based upon it.

"We should be clear, when we are talking about information here, we really mean human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is photos. It's artworks. It's records ... The whole point of AI training is to learn how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a tune featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms since it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not believe the use of generative AI for imaginative functions need to be prohibited, however I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without permission ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very powerful but let's build it fairly and relatively."

OpenAI says Chinese competitors using its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

China's DeepSeek AI shakes market and damages America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have picked to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have actually chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK federal government is considering an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to use developers' material on the web to assist establish their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He explains that AI can make advances in locations like defence, healthcare and oke.zone logistics without trawling the work of authors, journalists and artists.

"All of these things work without going and changing copyright law and ruining the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your home of Lords, is also highly against eliminating copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and a lot of joy," says the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The federal government is weakening among its finest carrying out markets on the unclear pledge of growth."

A government spokesperson said: "No relocation will be made until we are definitely positive we have a useful plan that provides each of our objectives: increased control for best holders to assist them accredit their content, access to high-quality material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI developers."

Under the UK federal government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library containing public data from a wide variety of sources will also be made offered to AI researchers.

In the US the future of federal rules to manage AI is now up in the air following President Trump's go back to the presidency.

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to increase the safety of AI with, among other things, companies in the sector needed to share details of the functions of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has now been repealed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do instead, but he is stated to want the AI sector to face less policy.

This comes as a number of lawsuits against AI firms, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been gotten by everybody from the New York Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They claim that the AI firms broke the law when they took their material from the internet without their approval, and used it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of elements which can constitute reasonable usage - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it collects training information and wiki-tb-service.com whether it must be paying for it.

If this wasn't all enough to consider, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being one of the most downloaded totally free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it developed its technology for a portion of the rate of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's existing supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for larger tasks. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite difficult to read in parts because it's so long-winded.

But given how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm not sure for how long I can stay confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in worldwide innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents all over the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.