For Christmas I received a fascinating present from a friend - my very own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was entirely written by AI, with a few basic triggers about me provided by my pal Janet.

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

It mimics my chatty design of writing, however it's also a bit repetitive, and extremely verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's triggers in collating data about me.

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

There's also a mystical, repeated hallucination in the kind of my feline (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on nearly 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 contacted the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had sold around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, given 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 produce them, based upon an open source big language model.

I'm not asking you to buy my book. Actually you can't - just 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 abusive material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, produced by AI, and designed "entirely to bring humour and joy".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the item is planned as a "personalised gag present", and the books do not get offered even more.

He wishes to widen his variety, producing different genres such as sci-fi, and maybe providing an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - selling AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's also a bit scary if, like me, you compose for bphomesteading.com 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 revealed alarm about their work being used to train generative AI tools that then produce comparable material based upon it.

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we really imply human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI companies to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is photos. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The whole point of AI training is to learn how to do something and after that do more like that."

In 2023 a song featuring AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and they had not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator attempting to nominate it for a Grammy award. And links.gtanet.com.br despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not think using generative AI for imaginative purposes must be banned, but I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without authorization need to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be really effective but let's construct it fairly and relatively."

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 dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually selected to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training purposes. Others have decided to team up - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

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

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "madness".

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

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

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your home of Lords, is also strongly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative markets are wealth creators, 2.4 million jobs and a 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 one of its finest carrying out industries on the unclear promise of growth."

A government representative said: "No move will be made till we are definitely positive we have a useful strategy that provides each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them license their content, access to top quality material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI developers."

Under the UK federal government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library consisting of public data from a wide variety of sources will also be offered to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal guidelines 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 intended to improve the safety of AI with, amongst other things, firms in the sector needed to share information of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

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

This comes as a variety of claims versus AI companies, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been secured by everybody from the New york city Times to authors, music labels, and pipewiki.org even a comedian.

They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their content 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 constitute fair use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it collects training data and whether it must be paying for it.

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

DeepSeek declares that it developed its technology for a fraction of the rate of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's current supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I think that at the moment, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It has plenty of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and it can be rather tough to read in parts due to the fact that it's so long-winded.

But offered how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm not sure for how long I can stay positive that my considerably slower human writing and modifying skills, are better.

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

Outside the UK? Sign up here.