For Christmas I received a from a good friend - my very own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was totally written by AI, with a few easy prompts about me provided by my friend Janet.

It's a fascinating read, and uproarious in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is somewhere 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 really verbose. It might have surpassed Janet's prompts in collecting information about me.

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

There's also a mysterious, repetitive hallucination in the kind 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 business online offering AI-book writing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I called the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had actually offered around 150,000 customised books, primarily in the US, since pivoting from assembling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller expenses ₤ 26. The company uses its own AI tools to create them, based on an open source large language model.

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody developing one in any person's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach states there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, produced by AI, and developed "entirely to bring humour and happiness".

Legally, the copyright comes from the company, but Mr Mashiach worries that the item is intended as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get offered even more.

He intends to broaden his range, generating various genres such as sci-fi, and experienciacortazar.com.ar maybe offering an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - selling AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's likewise a bit terrifying if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least due to the fact that it probably took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound much like me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have revealed alarm about their work being utilized 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 mean human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to respect creators' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is images. It's artworks. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to find out 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 media before being pulled from streaming platforms since it was not their work and they had not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the use of generative AI for creative purposes must be banned, but I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without permission ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very effective however let's construct it morally and fairly."

OpenAI says Chinese rivals using its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

China's DeepSeek AI shakes industry and damages America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually picked to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training functions. Others have chosen to work together - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to use developers' material on the internet to help establish their models, unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

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

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

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

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a whole lot of joy," states the Baroness, who is likewise a consultant to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The federal government is weakening among its best performing markets on the unclear guarantee of development."

A government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made up until we are absolutely confident we have a useful plan that provides each of our goals: increased control for ideal holders to assist them license their content, access to high-quality material to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI strategy, a nationwide information library consisting of public information from a vast array of sources will also be offered to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal rules 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 enhance the security of AI with, to name a few 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 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 number of lawsuits versus AI companies, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been gotten by everyone from the New York Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They declare that the AI firms broke the law when they took their content from the internet without their authorization, and used it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "reasonable use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a number of elements which can make up reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it gathers training data and whether it should be paying for it.

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

DeepSeek claims that it established its technology for a portion of the cost of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's current dominance of the sector.

As for me and forum.altaycoins.com a career as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still need to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weakness in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite hard to check out in parts since it's so verbose.

But given how rapidly the tech is evolving, I'm unsure the length of time I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and modifying abilities, are better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest advancements in worldwide technology, with analysis from BBC reporters all over the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.