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

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

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a few easy prompts about me supplied by my buddy Janet.

It's an interesting read, and extremely funny in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is someplace in between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

It simulates my chatty style of composing, but it's also a bit repeated, and extremely verbose. It may have exceeded Janet's prompts in collating data about me.

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

There's likewise a strange, repetitive hallucination in the type of my cat (I have no 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 chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, bbarlock.com he told me he had actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, generally in the US, considering that rotating from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The company uses its own AI tools to create them, based upon an open source big language design.

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone creating one in anyone's name, including celebrities - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive content. Each book includes a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, created by AI, and developed "solely to bring humour and pleasure".

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

He hopes to widen his range, generating various categories such as sci-fi, and possibly offering an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - offering to human customers.

It's likewise a bit terrifying if, like me, you write for a living. Not least since it most likely took less than a minute to produce, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound simply like me.

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

"We ought to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we really imply human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder 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 learn how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a tune including AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms since 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 cadizpedia.wikanda.es a Grammy award. And although the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

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

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

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI developers to utilize creators' content on the web to help develop their models, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He mentions 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 changing copyright law and messing up the livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.

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

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a great deal of joy," 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 performing industries on the vague pledge of growth."

A federal government representative said: "No relocation 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 material, access to premium material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's new AI strategy, a nationwide data library including public data from a vast array of sources will also 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 executive order that aimed to enhance the safety of AI with, amongst other things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the workings of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

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

This comes as a number of lawsuits against AI firms, and especially against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been taken out by everybody from the New York 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 authorization, and used it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can make up reasonable usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training information and whether it must be spending for akropolistravel.com it.

If this wasn't all sufficient to consider, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous 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 technology for a portion of the rate of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security concerns in the US, koha-community.cz and threatens American's existing supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I believe that at the minute, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still need to compose 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 rather difficult to check out in parts because it's so verbose.

But given how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm not exactly sure the length of time I can stay positive that my considerably slower human writing and wikibase.imfd.cl modifying abilities, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.