For Christmas I received an interesting present from a pal - my really own "best-selling" book.

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

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

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

It mimics my chatty style of writing, but it's likewise a bit repetitive, and very verbose. It may have surpassed Janet's prompts in collecting data about me.

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

There's also a strange, repetitive hallucination in the type of my feline (I have no pets). And 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 got in touch with the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, given that pivoting from putting together 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 design.

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

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

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

He hopes to widen his range, generating various genres such as sci-fi, and maybe providing an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of consumer AI - selling AI-generated goods to human customers.

It's also a bit frightening if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to generate, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound similar to me.

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

"We must be clear, when we are talking about data here, we in fact imply human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is pictures. It's artworks. It's records ... The whole 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 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 creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the use of generative AI for creative functions should be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without permission should be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective but let's construct it morally and relatively."

OpenAI says Chinese rivals 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 - consisting of the BBC - have actually chosen to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have actually decided to work together - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to utilize creators' content on the web to help establish their designs, unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "madness".

He mentions that AI can make advances in locations 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 destroying the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is likewise strongly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a great deal of happiness," states the Baroness, who is likewise an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening among its best carrying out industries on the unclear guarantee of growth."

A government representative stated: "No move will be made until we are definitely positive we have a practical plan that provides each of our goals: increased control for best holders to help them certify their content, access to top quality product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI strategy, a nationwide data library including public data from a wide variety of sources will likewise be offered to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal rules 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 increase the security of AI with, amongst other things, firms in the sector needed to share details of the workings of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has actually now been reversed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do instead, clashofcryptos.trade however he is stated to desire the AI sector to face less guideline.

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

They claim that the AI companies broke the law when they took their content from the internet without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are for that reason exempt. There are a number of factors which can constitute fair usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it gathers training data and whether it must be paying for it.

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

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

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I think that at the minute, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It is full of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and bphomesteading.com it can be rather difficult to read in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But given how quickly the tech is evolving, I'm unsure how long I can remain confident that my significantly slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

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

Outside the UK? Sign up here.