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

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

Yet it was entirely written by AI, with a few simple prompts about me provided by my good friend Janet.

It's an intriguing read, and really amusing in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is somewhere in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It simulates my chatty style of composing, but it's also a bit repeated, and really verbose. It might have gone beyond Janet's triggers in looking at information about me.

Several sentences begin "as a leading innovation reporter ..." - cringe - which might have been scraped from an online bio.

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

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

When I contacted the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had sold around 150,000 personalised books, generally in the US, since pivoting from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The firm utilizes its own AI tools to generate them, based on an open source large 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 currently no barrier to anyone developing one in anyone's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around . Each book includes a printed disclaimer specifying that it is imaginary, developed by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and delight".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the firm, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is planned as a "personalised gag present", and the books do not get sold even more.

He hopes to expand his range, generating various categories such as sci-fi, and possibly providing an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated products to human customers.

It's likewise a bit terrifying if, like me, you write for a living. Not least due to the fact that it most likely took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound similar to me.

Musicians, authors, artists and actors worldwide have actually revealed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then churn out comparable material based upon it.

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we actually mean human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is pictures. It's works of art. 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 singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social networks before being pulled from streaming platforms due to the fact that it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's developer trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not think the usage of generative AI for imaginative functions should be banned, however I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without authorization must be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be extremely effective however let's build it fairly and relatively."

OpenAI states Chinese competitors 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 - including the BBC - have picked to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have chosen to team up - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to utilize creators' material on the web to help develop their models, unless the rights holders decide 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, journalists and artists.

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

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also strongly against removing copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a whole lot of pleasure," 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 carrying out markets on the vague promise of development."

A federal government representative stated: "No move will be made up until we are definitely confident we have a practical strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to assist them license their content, access to top quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a nationwide data library including public information from a large range of sources will also be offered to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal guidelines 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 functions of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

But this has now been reversed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is said to want the AI sector galgbtqhistoryproject.org to face less policy.

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

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

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

If this wasn't all sufficient to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has 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 developed its innovation for pipewiki.org a fraction of the cost of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's existing supremacy of the sector.

As for me and a career as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weakness in generative AI tools for bigger projects. It has lots of errors and hallucinations, and it can be rather challenging to read in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But provided how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm not exactly sure for how long I can stay confident that my significantly slower human writing and editing abilities, are much better.

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

Outside the UK? Register here.