For Christmas I got an intriguing present from a friend - my really own "very popular" book.

"Tech-Splaining for Dummies" (fantastic title) bears my name and my photo on its cover, and it has glowing reviews.

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

It's an interesting read, and really funny in parts. But it likewise meanders quite a lot, and is someplace in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It imitates my chatty style of composing, but it's also a bit recurring, and really verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's prompts in looking at information about me.

Several sentences start "as a leading technology reporter ..." - cringe - which could have been scraped from an online bio.

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

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

When I called the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had sold around 150,000 personalised books, generally in the US, considering that pivoting from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller costs ₤ 26. The company utilizes its own AI tools to create them, based upon an open source large language model.

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone developing one in anybody's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer specifying that it is imaginary, created by AI, and developed "exclusively to bring humour and joy".

Legally, the copyright comes from the company, however Mr Mashiach worries that the item is planned as a "personalised gag present", and the books do not get sold further.

He wants to widen his range, generating different categories such as sci-fi, and maybe using an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated items to human customers.

It's also a bit frightening if, like me, you write for a living. Not least since it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound similar to me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have expressed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then churn out comparable content based upon it.

"We ought to be clear, when we are talking about information here, we actually indicate human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to respect creators' rights.

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

In 2023 a tune including AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social networks before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator attempting to choose it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not believe making use of generative AI for creative purposes ought to be banned, however I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without approval ought to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be really powerful but let's develop it morally and fairly."

OpenAI states Chinese rivals using its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

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

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually chosen to block AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have actually decided to work together - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

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

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He mentions that AI can make advances in locations like defence, healthcare and logistics without trawling the work of authors, reporters and artists.

"All of these things work without going and altering copyright law and destroying the livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your house of Lords, is likewise strongly against removing copyright law for AI.

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a great deal of happiness," states the Baroness, who is likewise a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening one of its finest performing industries on the unclear promise of growth."

A federal government representative stated: "No relocation will be made up until we are absolutely positive we have a practical strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to assist them license their material, access to high-quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI plan, a nationwide information library containing public data from a broad variety of will also be made readily available to AI scientists.

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 improve the security of AI with, among other things, firms in the sector needed to share details of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are released.

But this has actually now been reversed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do instead, however he is said to desire the AI sector to deal with less regulation.

This comes as a variety of suits against AI companies, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been secured by everyone from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and even a comedian.

They claim that the AI firms broke the law when they took their content from the web without their consent, and used it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of factors which can make up reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it gathers training data and whether it ought to be spending for it.

If this wasn't all adequate to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being the many downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it established its technology for a portion of the price of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's current supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I actually want a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the current weakness in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It has lots of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and it can be quite hard to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But offered how quickly the tech is developing, I'm uncertain how long I can stay confident that my significantly slower human writing and editing abilities, wiki.lafabriquedelalogistique.fr are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in global technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the globe.

Outside the UK? Register here.