For Christmas I got an interesting present from a friend - my extremely own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was totally written by AI, with a few basic prompts about me provided by my pal Janet.

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

It imitates my chatty design of writing, but it's also a bit recurring, and extremely verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's prompts in collecting data about me.

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

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

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

When I got in touch with the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 customised books, primarily in the US, given that rotating from assembling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller costs ₤ 26. The firm uses its own AI tools to generate them, based upon an open source large language design.

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody creating one in anybody's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book contains a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, produced by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

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

He hopes to widen his variety, creating different categories such as sci-fi, and possibly using an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated items to human customers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, like me, you write for a living. Not least because it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound simply like me.

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

"We should be clear, when we are discussing data here, we really imply human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to respect creators' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is images. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to find out how to do something and after that 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 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 although the artists were phony, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not believe the usage of generative AI for imaginative purposes must be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without permission must be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very powerful however let's build it morally 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 industry and dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually picked to block AI designers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have actually chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

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

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

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

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

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr is also strongly against eliminating copyright law for AI.

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

"The government is undermining among its best carrying out markets on the vague guarantee of growth."

A federal government representative stated: "No relocation will be made up until we are absolutely positive we have a practical plan that provides each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them certify their content, access to premium material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI developers."

Under the UK federal government's brand-new AI plan, a nationwide data library including public data from a vast array of sources will likewise be provided to AI researchers.

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

In 2023 Biden signed an order that aimed to boost the safety of AI with, amongst other things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the functions of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

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

This comes as a number of suits versus AI firms, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everyone 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 material from the internet without their permission, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can make up reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward definition. 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 enough to contemplate, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being the a lot of downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it developed its innovation for a portion of the rate of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present dominance of the sector.

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I think 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 current weak point in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It has plenty of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and it can be quite tough to read in parts since it's so verbose.

But offered how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm uncertain how long I can remain positive that my significantly slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest developments in international technology, with analysis from BBC reporters all over the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.