For Christmas I received a fascinating present from a pal - my extremely own "very popular" book.

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

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

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

It simulates my chatty style of composing, however it's also a bit recurring, and very verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's prompts in collating data about me.

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

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

There are dozens of business online offering AI-book composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I called the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had sold around 150,000 customised books, primarily in the US, because rotating from assembling 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 on an open source large language model.

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

There is currently no barrier to anyone creating one in anyone's name, consisting of celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive content. Each book contains a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, produced by AI, and created "solely to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the company, but Mr Mashiach stresses that the item is meant as a "personalised gag gift", and the books do not get offered further.

He intends to expand his variety, producing different categories such as sci-fi, and possibly using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of consumer AI - offering AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's also a bit frightening if, like me, you write for a living. Not least due to the fact that it probably took less than a minute to generate, and it does, certainly in some parts, sound just like me.

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

"We should be clear, when we are discussing information here, we really mean human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is images. It's artworks. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to find out how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a tune featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's developer trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were fake, bbarlock.com it was still extremely popular.

"I do not believe using generative AI for imaginative purposes must be prohibited, however I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without authorization should be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be really powerful but let's build it ethically 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 block AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have decided to work together - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would enable AI developers to utilize creators' material on the web to assist develop their designs, unless the rights holders opt out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

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

"All of these things work without going and altering copyright law and messing up the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

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

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

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

A government representative stated: "No move will be made until we are absolutely positive we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them accredit their content, access to premium material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more openness for best holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's new AI plan, a national data library including public data from a wide variety of sources will also be provided to AI scientists.

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 aimed to increase the safety of AI with, wavedream.wiki to name a few things, firms in the sector needed to share details of the operations of their systems with the US federal government before they are released.

But this has actually now been reversed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do instead, however he is stated to want the AI sector to deal with less guideline.

This comes as a variety of lawsuits versus AI companies, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been secured 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 web without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a number of aspects 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 paying for it.

If this wasn't all enough to contemplate, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous week. It ended up being the a lot of app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek declares that it developed its technology for a fraction of the cost of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's current supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I think that at the moment, if I actually 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 tasks. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite difficult to read in parts since it's so long-winded.

But offered how quickly the tech is developing, I'm not exactly sure for how long I can remain confident that my significantly slower human writing and editing skills, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents all over the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.