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

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

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a couple of simple triggers about me provided by my pal Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty design of writing, but it's also a bit repeated, and really verbose. It may have exceeded Janet's prompts in looking at 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 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 lots of business online offering AI-book composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I called the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually offered around 150,000 customised books, generally in the US, considering that pivoting from compiling 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 model.

I'm not asking you to buy my book. Actually you can't - only Janet, who developed it, wiki.dulovic.tech can purchase any further copies.

There is presently no barrier to anyone producing one in any person's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book contains a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is imaginary, created by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and joy".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the product is intended as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get sold further.

He wants to widen his variety, producing various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - offering AI-generated items to human customers.

It's also a bit scary if, like me, wiki.myamens.com you compose for suvenir51.ru a living. Not least because it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound simply like me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have revealed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then produce comparable content based upon it.

"We must be clear, when we are discussing information here, we actually suggest human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is pictures. It's artworks. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to discover how to do something and then 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 due to the fact that it was not their work and they had actually not granted it. It didn't stop the track's developer attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for creative purposes need to be prohibited, however I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without authorization need to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very effective however let's build it morally and fairly."

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 market and dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have actually selected to block AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have actually chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI designers to use developers' content on the internet to help their models, unless the rights holders opt 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 messing up the incomes of the country's creatives," he argues.

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

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a whole lot of happiness," says 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 performing markets on the unclear promise of growth."

A government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made till we are absolutely confident we have a practical strategy that delivers each of our goals: increased control for right holders to help them accredit their material, access to high-quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for ideal holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's new AI strategy, a nationwide data library containing public information from a large range of sources will also be provided to AI researchers.

In the US the future of federal rules to manage 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 increase the safety of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector required to share information of the workings of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

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

This comes as a number of claims versus AI companies, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been taken out 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 permission, and used it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can constitute fair usage - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it gathers training data and whether it need to be paying for it.

If this wasn't all adequate to contemplate, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being one of the most downloaded totally free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it developed its innovation for a fraction of the price of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's current dominance of the sector.

As for me and a profession as an author, trademarketclassifieds.com I think that at the minute, if I actually 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 larger projects. It has lots of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be rather challenging to read in parts because it's so long-winded.

But offered how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm not exactly sure how long I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest developments in worldwide innovation, with analysis from BBC reporters around the globe.

Outside the UK? Register here.