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

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

Yet it was completely written by AI, with a few simple prompts about me provided by my pal Janet.

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

It mimics my chatty design of writing, but it's likewise a bit recurring, and very verbose. It may have exceeded Janet's prompts in looking at information about me.

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

There's likewise a mysterious, repeated hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on nearly every page - some more random than others.

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

When I called the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually offered around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, since pivoting from putting together 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 create them, based on an open source large language model.

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody creating one in any person's name, consisting of celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is fictional, developed by AI, and developed "exclusively to bring humour and joy".

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

He wants to broaden his variety, producing different categories such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - offering AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's also a bit frightening if, like me, you write for a living. Not least due to the fact that it most likely took less than a minute to create, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound similar to me.

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

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

"This is books, this is posts, this is images. It's works of art. 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 tune including 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 they had actually not granted it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And although the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the usage of generative AI for creative purposes ought to be banned, however I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without approval ought to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be really powerful but let's build it morally and relatively."

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 market and dents America's swagger

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

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

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

He mentions that AI can make advances in areas 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 destroying the livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.

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

"Creative markets are wealth developers, 2.4 million jobs and a great deal of happiness," states the Baroness, who is also an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening one of its finest performing industries on the unclear promise of growth."

A federal government spokesperson said: "No move will be made until we are definitely positive we have a practical plan that delivers each of our goals: increased control for ideal holders to help them license their content, access to top quality material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for best holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI strategy, a nationwide data library consisting of public information from a vast array of sources will also be made available to AI researchers.

In the US the future of federal rules to manage AI is now up in the air following President Trump's return to the presidency.

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that aimed to improve the safety of AI with, among other things, companies in the sector required to share information of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are released.

But this has now been rescinded by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, but he is stated to desire the AI sector photorum.eclat-mauve.fr to deal with less policy.

This comes as a variety of suits against AI firms, and particularly against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everyone 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 internet without their consent, and utilized 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 aspects which can constitute reasonable usage - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it gathers training data and whether it ought to be paying for it.

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

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

When it comes to me and a profession as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weakness in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It is full of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so long-winded.

But given how quickly the tech is developing, I'm unsure how long I can remain confident that my substantially slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in global technology, with analysis from BBC reporters around the world.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.