For Christmas I got an intriguing gift from a pal - my extremely own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a couple of simple prompts about me supplied by my buddy Janet.

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

It imitates my chatty design of composing, but it's also a bit repeated, and very verbose. It may have surpassed Janet's triggers in collating information about me.

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

There's also a strange, repetitive hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no pets). And there's a metaphor on almost 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 called the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, generally 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 uses its own AI tools to create them, based upon an open source large language design.

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone developing one in anybody's name, consisting of celebrities - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book includes a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is fictional, developed by AI, and developed "exclusively to bring humour and joy".

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

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

It's likewise a bit scary if, like me, you write for a living. Not least since it most likely took less than a minute to produce, and it does, opentx.cz definitely in some parts, sound just 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 comparable content based upon it.

"We should be clear, when we are talking about information here, we actually indicate human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is pictures. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to learn 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 because it was not their work and they had not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's developer trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not believe using generative AI for imaginative purposes ought to be prohibited, but I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without consent must be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very powerful however let's build it morally and relatively."

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

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would enable AI developers to use developers' material on the internet to assist establish their models, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He points out that AI can make advances in locations like defence, health care and logistics without trawling the work of authors, journalists and artists.

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

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

"Creative industries are wealth developers, 2.4 million tasks and a whole lot of delight," says the Baroness, who is likewise an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is undermining one of its best carrying out industries on the vague pledge of growth."

A federal government spokesperson stated: "No relocation will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a useful strategy that provides each of our goals: increased control for right holders to assist them certify their content, access to high-quality product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI developers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI plan, a nationwide information library containing public information from a vast array of sources will likewise be provided 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 aimed to boost the security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are released.

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

This comes as a number of suits versus AI companies, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been secured 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 material from the internet without their approval, and utilized it to train their systems.

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

If this wasn't all sufficient to consider, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It became the many downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it developed its technology for a portion of the price of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present dominance 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 write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weakness in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has lots of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be quite difficult to check out in parts since it's so long-winded.

But provided how rapidly the tech is progressing, vmeste-so-vsemi.ru I'm unsure how long I can stay confident that my significantly slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest developments in international innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.