For Christmas I got a fascinating gift from a buddy - my really own "very popular" book.

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

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

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

It imitates my chatty design of writing, however it's likewise a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's triggers in collating information about me.

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

There's likewise a mystical, repeated hallucination in the form of my feline (I have no pets). And there's a metaphor on practically every page - some more random than others.

There are dozens of companies online offering AI-book writing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I contacted the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had actually offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, because pivoting 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 upon an open source big language model.

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

There is presently no barrier to anybody producing one in anyone's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book includes a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, created by AI, and created "entirely to bring humour and joy".

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

He intends to widen his variety, producing various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - selling AI-generated items to human customers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, like me, you write for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to create, and vmeste-so-vsemi.ru it does, definitely in some parts, sound much like me.

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

"We ought to be clear, when we are speaking about information here, we in fact mean human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is pictures. It's works of art. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to discover how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a tune including AI-generated voices of Canadian singers Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social networks before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and they had not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's developer attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were phony, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not think using generative AI for creative purposes ought to be prohibited, however I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without consent ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be extremely effective but let's construct it morally and fairly."

OpenAI states Chinese rivals utilizing its work for setiathome.berkeley.edu 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 picked to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have actually decided to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

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

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He points out 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 house of Lords, is also strongly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth developers, 2.4 million jobs 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 federal government is undermining one of its finest carrying out industries on the vague guarantee of growth."

A government representative said: "No move will be made till we are absolutely confident we have a practical strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for ideal holders to help them license their material, access to top quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI designers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a nationwide data library including public information from a wide variety of sources will likewise be made available 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, firms in the sector needed to share information of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are released.

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

This comes as a variety of claims against AI companies, 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 comedian.

They claim that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the web without their authorization, 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 variety of elements which can constitute reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under over how it collects training data and whether it need to be spending for it.

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

DeepSeek claims that it developed its technology for a portion of the cost of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security concerns in the US, and pipewiki.org threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

As for online-learning-initiative.org me and a career as an author, I think that at the moment, if I really desire a "bestseller" I'll still have 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 mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be rather difficult to check out in parts because it's so long-winded.

But provided how rapidly the tech is progressing, I'm unsure how long I can remain positive that my significantly slower human writing and modifying abilities, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest developments in global technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the globe.

Outside the UK? Register here.