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

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

Yet it was entirely written by AI, with a couple of basic triggers about me supplied by my pal Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty style of composing, however it's likewise a bit recurring, and extremely verbose. It may have surpassed Janet's prompts in collating data about me.

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

There's also a strange, repeated hallucination in the kind 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 companies online offering AI-book composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I contacted the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, because rotating 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 upon 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 order any additional copies.

There is presently no barrier to anyone developing one in anyone's name, consisting of celebs - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive content. Each book includes a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, produced by AI, and developed "exclusively to bring humour and pleasure".

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

He wants to expand his variety, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and possibly using an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - selling AI-generated items to human clients.

It's likewise a bit terrifying if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least due to the fact that it probably took less than a minute to generate, 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 produce similar material based upon it.

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing information here, we in fact mean human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to respect developers' rights.

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

In 2023 a song featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and they had actually not granted 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, links.gtanet.com.br it was still .

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

OpenAI states Chinese rivals utilizing its work for asystechnik.com 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 actually selected to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have actually decided to work together - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

The UK government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to utilize creators' content on the web to assist establish their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He points out 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 messing up the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

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

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

"The government is weakening one of its finest performing markets on the vague guarantee of development."

A government representative said: "No relocation will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that provides each of our goals: increased control for ideal holders to help them accredit their material, access to top quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI strategy, a national data library including public information from a vast array of sources will likewise be offered to AI researchers.

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 enhance the safety of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector required to share details 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 stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, but he is said to desire the AI sector to deal with less guideline.

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

They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the internet without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of factors which can constitute reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training data and whether it should be spending for it.

If this wasn't all sufficient to consider, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the previous week. It became the most downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it developed its innovation for a portion of the cost 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 career as an author, I think that at the moment, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still need to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weakness in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It has plenty of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be rather tough to read in parts since it's so long-winded.

But given how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm unsure for how long I can stay positive that my substantially slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in international technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the globe.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.