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

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

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

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

It imitates my chatty style of writing, but it's likewise a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It might have exceeded Janet's prompts in collecting information about me.

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

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

There are dozens 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 actually offered around 150,000 customised books, mainly in the US, since 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 developed it, can order any additional copies.

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

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the item is intended as a "personalised gag present", and yewiki.org the books do not get sold even more.

He wants to broaden his variety, producing different genres such as sci-fi, and possibly offering an autobiography service. It's developed to be a form of customer AI - selling AI-generated items to human customers.

It's also a bit scary if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least due to the fact that it probably took less than a minute to produce, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound simply like me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have actually expressed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then produce similar material based upon it.

"We must be clear, when we are speaking about data here, we in fact suggest human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is images. It's masterpieces. 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 tune including AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms due to the fact that it was not their work and they had actually not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not believe using generative AI for imaginative functions need to be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without approval must be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very powerful but let's develop it morally and fairly."

OpenAI says Chinese competitors utilizing its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

China's DeepSeek AI shakes market and dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have selected to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have decided to team up - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI developers to use developers' content on the internet to assist develop their designs, unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

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

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

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

"Creative markets are wealth developers, 2.4 million tasks and an entire lot of delight," states the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

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

A federal government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made till we are definitely confident we have a useful strategy that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to assist them accredit their content, access to premium material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for ideal holders from AI developers."

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

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 boost the safety of AI with, among other things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the workings of their systems with the US federal government before they are released.

But this has actually now been rescinded by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do instead, annunciogratis.net but he is said to desire the AI sector to face less guideline.

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

They declare that the AI companies 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 elements which can constitute fair usage - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it collects training data and whether it ought to be paying for it.

If this wasn't all sufficient to consider, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being the a lot of downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it established its technology for a fraction of the price of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

As for me and photorum.eclat-mauve.fr a profession as an author, I think that at the moment, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weakness in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has lots of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and it can be rather challenging to check out in parts since it's so long-winded.

But offered how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm unsure for how long I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest developments in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the globe.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.