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

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

Yet it was entirely composed by AI, with a few basic prompts about me supplied by my pal Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty design of writing, however it's likewise a bit recurring, and very verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's triggers in collating data about me.

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

There's also a mysterious, repetitive hallucination in the kind of my feline (I have no animals). 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 got in touch with the primary executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, primarily in the US, since pivoting from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

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

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone creating one in any person's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book includes a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, produced by AI, and developed "solely to bring humour and pleasure".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the company, wiki.project1999.com but Mr Mashiach worries that the item is intended as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get offered even more.

He wants to widen his variety, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and possibly offering an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted form of consumer AI - selling AI-generated products to human customers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, like me, you compose 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, authors, artists and stars worldwide have 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 data here, we actually mean human creators' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI companies to respect developers' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, this is pictures. It's works of art. 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 vocalists 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 phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not believe using generative AI for innovative purposes need to be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without permission ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very powerful however let's construct it morally and fairly."

OpenAI states 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 dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have actually selected to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online content for training functions. Others have actually chosen to team up - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for example.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to use developers' content on the internet to help establish their models, unless the rights holders opt out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

He mentions 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 changing copyright law and ruining the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

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

"Creative industries are wealth developers, 2.4 million tasks and a lot of happiness," states 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 best performing markets on the unclear promise of growth."

A government spokesperson stated: "No relocation will be made up until we are definitely confident we have a practical strategy that delivers each of our goals: increased control for ideal holders to help them license their content, access to high-quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more transparency for best holders from AI developers."

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

In the US the future of federal rules 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 aimed to enhance the safety of AI with, to name a few things, companies in the sector needed to share information of the functions of their systems with the US federal government before they are launched.

But this has now been rescinded by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do instead, but he is said to desire the AI sector to deal with less guideline.

This comes as a number of lawsuits against AI firms, 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 declare that the AI firms broke the law when they took their material from the web without their consent, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair use" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can make up fair use - it's not a straight-forward meaning. But the AI sector experienciacortazar.com.ar is under increasing analysis over how it gathers training data and whether it should be paying for it.

If this wasn't all enough to ponder, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous 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 rate of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's current dominance of the sector.

As for me and a career as an author, I think that at the minute, if I actually want a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for larger tasks. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite tough to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so verbose.

But given how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm uncertain how long I can stay positive that my considerably slower human writing and editing abilities, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.