For Christmas I got an interesting gift from a buddy - my really own "best-selling" book.

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

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

It's a fascinating read, and very amusing in parts. But it likewise meanders rather a lot, and is somewhere between a self-help book and a stream of anecdotes.

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

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

There's also a mystical, repetitive hallucination in the kind of my cat (I have no family pets). And there's a metaphor on practically every page - some more random than others.

There are lots 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 told me he had actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, primarily 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 costs ₤ 26. The firm utilizes its own AI tools to create them, based upon an open source big language model.

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

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

Legally, the copyright comes from the company, however Mr that the item is meant as a "customised gag present", and the books do not get offered even more.

He intends to broaden his variety, generating different genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted kind of customer AI - offering AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's also a bit terrifying if, like me, you write 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 just like 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 content based upon it.

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we really suggest human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is short articles, 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 song including AI-generated voices of Canadian vocalists Drake and The Weeknd went viral on social media 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 despite the fact that the artists were phony, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for imaginative purposes ought to be banned, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without approval need to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be extremely effective but let's construct it ethically and fairly."

OpenAI says Chinese rivals utilizing 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 - including the BBC - have actually picked to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have decided to team up - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK federal government is considering an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to utilize developers' content on the internet to help establish their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He points out that AI can make advances in locations like defence, health care and logistics without trawling the work of authors, reporters and artists.

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

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is also highly versus removing copyright law for AI.

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

"The government is weakening one of its best performing markets on the unclear guarantee of growth."

A federal government spokesperson said: "No move will be made up until we are definitely confident we have a practical strategy that delivers each of our goals: increased control for best holders to help them accredit their material, access to premium material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more openness for ideal holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI strategy, a national information library including public information from a wide variety 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 improve the safety 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 released.

But this has actually now been repealed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do instead, but he is said to desire the AI sector to face less regulation.

This comes as a number of lawsuits versus AI companies, and particularly versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been secured 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 content from the internet without their approval, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and are for that reason exempt. There are a variety of elements which can make up fair usage - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing analysis over how it collects training data and whether it should be spending for it.

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

DeepSeek declares that it developed its technology for wavedream.wiki a fraction of the price of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has raised security concerns in the US, and threatens American's present supremacy of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I think that at the minute, if I really want a "bestseller" I'll still have to write it myself. If anything, sciencewiki.science Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the current weak point in generative AI tools for bigger jobs. It is full of inaccuracies and hallucinations, and it can be rather hard to check out in parts because it's so verbose.

But given how quickly the tech is developing, I'm not exactly sure how long I can remain positive that my considerably slower human writing and modifying abilities, are better.

Register for chessdatabase.science our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant developments in worldwide innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents around the globe.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.