For Christmas I got a fascinating 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 radiant evaluations.

Yet it was entirely written by AI, with a couple of basic prompts about me provided by my buddy Janet.

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

It mimics my chatty design of composing, however it's also a bit repeated, and really verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's prompts in collating information about me.

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

There's also a mystical, repetitive hallucination in the form 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, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, considering that rotating from putting together AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller costs ₤ 26. The company 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 purchase any additional copies.

There is presently no barrier to anybody producing one in anybody's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer specifying that it is imaginary, created by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the firm, but Mr Mashiach worries that the item is planned as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get sold further.

He intends to expand his variety, producing different categories such as sci-fi, and perhaps offering an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - selling AI-generated goods to human customers.

It's also a bit terrifying 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, koha-community.cz sound similar to me.

Musicians, authors, artists and actors worldwide have actually revealed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then produce similar content based upon it.

"We ought to be clear, when we are discussing information here, we in fact imply human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is pictures. It's works of art. It's records ... The whole point of AI training is to discover 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 networks before being pulled from streaming platforms due to the fact that it was not their work and they had actually not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not believe the usage of generative AI for creative functions ought to be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on individuals's work without consent should be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be really effective but let's construct it fairly and relatively."

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 chosen to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training functions. Others have actually decided to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for example.

The UK federal government is considering an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to use creators' content on the internet to assist develop their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He mentions that AI can make advances in areas like defence, healthcare and logistics without trawling the work of authors, reporters and .

"All of these things work without going and altering copyright law and ruining the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also strongly against eliminating copyright law for AI.

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

"The federal government is undermining among its best carrying out markets on the vague pledge of growth."

A federal government representative stated: "No move will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a useful strategy that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to help them accredit their content, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI plan, a nationwide information library containing public data from a large range of sources will likewise be offered to AI researchers.

In the US the future of federal rules to control 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 improve the safety of AI with, to name a few things, vmeste-so-vsemi.ru firms in the sector needed to share information of the functions of their systems with the US government before they are released.

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

This comes as a variety of claims versus AI firms, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everybody 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 content from the web without their permission, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair use" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of elements which can constitute fair use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training data and whether it must be spending for it.

If this wasn't all enough to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous week. It ended up being the many downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

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

As for me and a profession as an author, I think that at the minute, if I really desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for larger projects. It has plenty of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite difficult to read in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

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

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

Outside the UK? Sign up here.