For Christmas I received an interesting gift from a friend - my really own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was totally composed by AI, with a couple of easy triggers about me provided by my good friend Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty style of writing, however it's also a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's prompts in collecting information about me.

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

There's likewise a mystical, repeated 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 writing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I called the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, considering that pivoting from assembling 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 on an open source big language design.

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone creating one in anyone's name, consisting of celebs - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent content. Each book includes a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is fictional, produced by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright comes from the company, however Mr Mashiach stresses that the product is planned as a "personalised gag gift", and the books do not get sold even more.

He hopes to broaden his variety, generating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps offering an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated products to human clients.

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

Musicians, authors, artists and actors 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 discussing information here, we actually imply human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder 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 whole point of AI training is to find out how to do something and after that do more like that."

In 2023 a tune featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social networks before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and trade-britanica.trade they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were phony, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not believe making use of generative AI for innovative functions need to be banned, however I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without authorization should be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be extremely powerful but let's construct it ethically and fairly."

OpenAI says Chinese competitors utilizing its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

AI shakes industry and damages America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have chosen to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would enable AI designers to use developers' content on the internet to assist develop their models, unless the rights holders choose out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

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 altering copyright law and messing up the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your house of Lords, is likewise strongly against removing copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a lot of happiness," says the Baroness, who is also a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is undermining one of its finest carrying out industries on the unclear promise of development."

A federal government spokesperson said: "No move will be made until we are definitely positive we have a useful plan that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them license their content, access to premium product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's new AI plan, a nationwide data library including public data from a large range of sources will likewise be provided to AI scientists.

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 increase the security of AI with, to name a few things, firms in the sector required to share details of the functions of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

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

This comes as a variety of suits against AI firms, and particularly 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 comic.

They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the internet without their approval, and used it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a variety of factors which can make up fair usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training data and whether it ought to be paying for [forum.batman.gainedge.org](https://forum.batman.gainedge.org/index.php?action=profile