For Christmas I received a fascinating gift from a buddy - my extremely own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was entirely composed by AI, with a couple of easy triggers about me supplied by my buddy Janet.

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

It imitates my chatty design of writing, however it's also a bit repetitive, and very 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 kind of my feline (I have no family 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 informed me he had sold around 150,000 personalised books, mainly in the US, since rotating from compiling 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 produce them, based upon an open source big language model.

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone creating one in anyone's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around abusive content. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, created by AI, and created "exclusively to bring humour and pleasure".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the firm, but Mr Mashiach worries that the product is planned as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get offered even more.

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

It's likewise a bit frightening if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least due to the fact that it probably took less than a minute to produce, 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 churn out comparable material based upon it.

"We ought to be clear, when we are talking about information here, we actually mean human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder 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 entire point of AI training is to find out how to do something and after that do more like that."

In 2023 a song featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian singers 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 yogicentral.science they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator attempting to choose 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 imaginative purposes should be banned, but I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without permission ought to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be extremely effective but let's develop it fairly and fairly."

OpenAI says Chinese competitors utilizing its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

China's DeepSeek AI shakes market and swagger

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually selected to block AI designers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have chosen to work together - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI developers to utilize developers' content on the internet to assist establish their models, 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 altering copyright law and messing up the incomes of the nation's creatives," he argues.

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

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and a lot of delight," says the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

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

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

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library consisting of public data from a wide range of sources will likewise be offered to AI researchers.

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 improve the safety of AI with, among other things, firms in the sector required to share details of the operations of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has actually now been repealed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do instead, however he is said to desire the AI sector to deal with less policy.

This comes as a variety of claims against AI companies, and especially against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been gotten by everyone from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

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

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are therefore exempt. There are a number of factors which can make up reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it collects training information and whether it must be spending for it.

If this wasn't all adequate to ponder, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the past week. It became one of the most downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

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

As for me and a career as an author, I think that at the moment, if I actually want a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the current weak point in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to read in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But offered how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm unsure the length of time I can stay positive that my significantly slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in international innovation, with analysis from BBC reporters around the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.