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

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

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

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

It imitates my chatty style of writing, but it's also a bit repeated, and very verbose. It may have gone beyond Janet's prompts in collecting data about me.

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

There's also a mysterious, repetitive hallucination in the type of my cat (I have no family pets). And there's a metaphor on nearly 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 chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had offered around 150,000 customised 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 uses its own AI tools to produce them, based upon 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 buy any additional copies.

There is presently no barrier to anybody developing one in any person's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book includes a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is fictional, created by AI, and developed "exclusively to bring humour and delight".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, but Mr Mashiach worries that the product is planned as a "customised gag present", and the books do not get sold even more.

He hopes to widen his variety, producing different genres such as sci-fi, and maybe offering an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - offering AI-generated items to human customers.

It's also a bit scary if, like me, you write for a living. Not least because it most likely took less than a minute to create, and it does, wiki.insidertoday.org certainly in some parts, sound much like me.

Musicians, forum.altaycoins.com authors, artists and stars worldwide have actually revealed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then produce similar content based upon it.

"We ought to be clear, when we are speaking about information here, we actually imply human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to regard creators' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is images. It's masterpieces. 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 featuring 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 actually not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's developer trying to choose it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were phony, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not believe making use of generative AI for imaginative purposes must be banned, however I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on individuals's work without permission must be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be very effective but let's construct it ethically 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 picked to block AI designers from trawling their online content for training functions. Others have actually chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is about an overhaul of the law that would allow AI designers to utilize creators' material on the web to help establish their designs, unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "insanity".

He points out 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 changing copyright law and destroying the livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.

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

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

"The federal government is undermining among its finest carrying out markets on the unclear promise of growth."

A government spokesperson stated: "No move will be made until we are absolutely positive we have a practical plan that provides each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to help them certify their material, access to top quality product to train leading AI models in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI designers."

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

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

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to enhance the security of AI with, to name a few things, companies in the sector required to share information of the operations of their systems with the US federal government before they are released.

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

This comes as a variety of suits against AI companies, and especially versus OpenAI, continue in the US. They have been gotten by everyone from the New York Times to authors, music labels, and even a comic.

They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their content from the internet without their permission, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair use" and are therefore exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can make up 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 sufficient to ponder, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous week. It became one of the most downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it established its innovation for a fraction of the rate of the likes of OpenAI. Its success has actually raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's current supremacy of the sector.

As for me and a profession as an author, akropolistravel.com I believe that at the minute, if I truly want a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for larger projects. It has plenty of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to read in parts since it's so long-winded.

But provided how rapidly the tech is developing, fishtanklive.wiki I'm not sure how long I can remain confident that my considerably slower human writing and editing abilities, are much better.

Sign up for oke.zone our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC reporters worldwide.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.