For Christmas I received a fascinating present from a friend - my extremely own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was entirely composed by AI, with a couple of simple triggers about me provided by my friend Janet.

It's an intriguing read, and extremely 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 simulates my chatty style of writing, but it's also a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It might have exceeded Janet's triggers in looking at information about me.

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

There's also a strange, repeated hallucination in the kind of my feline (I have no pets). And there's a metaphor on practically 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 contacted the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 customised books, mainly in the US, because rotating from together AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

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

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

There is presently no barrier to anybody developing one in anybody's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent content. Each book contains a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, developed by AI, and developed "entirely to bring humour and pleasure".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is intended as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get offered further.

He wants to expand his range, producing different genres such as sci-fi, and maybe using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - offering AI-generated goods 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 generate, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound similar to me.

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

"We must be clear, when we are speaking about data here, we actually mean human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is images. It's works of art. It's records ... The whole point of AI training is to discover how to do something and after that 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 actually not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's creator attempting to choose it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for creative functions should be banned, however I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without consent should be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very powerful however let's build it ethically and relatively."

OpenAI says Chinese rivals utilizing 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 - consisting of the BBC - have chosen to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have decided to team up - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would enable AI developers to utilize creators' content on the internet to assist develop their models, forums.cgb.designknights.com unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

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

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

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your house of Lords, is also highly versus removing copyright law for AI.

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

"The government is weakening one of its best performing industries on the unclear guarantee of growth."

A government representative said: "No move will be made up until we are absolutely confident we have a useful plan that provides each of our goals: increased control for best holders to help them accredit their material, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for best holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a nationwide information library consisting of public information from a wide variety of sources will likewise be offered to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal guidelines to control AI is now up in the air following President Trump's return 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 operations of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has now been rescinded by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is stated to want the AI sector to deal with less regulation.

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

They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their content from the internet without their authorization, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of factors which can constitute fair use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it collects training information and whether it need to be paying for it.

If this wasn't all adequate to contemplate, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It became one of the most downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it developed its innovation for a fraction of the cost of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

As for me and a career as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has lots of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and links.gtanet.com.br it can be quite tough to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But given how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm uncertain for how long I can remain confident that my substantially slower human writing and editing skills, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest advancements in international innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.