For Christmas I got an interesting present from a good friend - my extremely own "very popular" book.

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

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

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

It mimics my chatty style of writing, but it's also a bit recurring, and really verbose. It might have gone beyond Janet's triggers in looking at data about me.

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

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

There are dozens of business online offering AI-book writing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I got in touch with the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had actually sold around 150,000 personalised books, generally in the US, because pivoting from putting together 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 generate 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 created it, trademarketclassifieds.com can buy any additional copies.

There is presently no barrier to anybody creating one in anybody's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book contains a printed disclaimer mentioning that it is imaginary, created by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and joy".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, but Mr Mashiach worries that the item is meant as a "customised gag gift", and the books do not get sold further.

He intends to widen his variety, generating different genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - selling AI-generated goods to human clients.

It's likewise a bit scary if, like me, you compose for a living. Not least since it most likely took less than a minute to create, and it does, certainly in some parts, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr sound much like me.

Musicians, authors, artists and stars worldwide have actually revealed alarm about their work being utilized to train generative AI tools that then churn out comparable material based upon it.

"We should be clear, when we are speaking about information here, we really suggest human developers' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, creator oke.zone of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is articles, this is pictures. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The whole point of AI training is to learn how to do something and then do more like that."

In 2023 a song featuring 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 consented to it. It didn't stop the track's creator trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the usage of generative AI for innovative functions must be prohibited, however I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without approval ought to be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be really effective but let's develop it ethically and relatively."

OpenAI states Chinese rivals using its work for hb9lc.org 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 selected to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training functions. Others have decided to collaborate - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is considering an overhaul of the law that would permit AI designers to use developers' content on the internet to assist develop their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He mentions 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 likewise strongly versus removing copyright law for AI.

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

"The government is weakening among its finest performing industries on the vague promise of growth."

A government spokesperson said: "No move will be made until we are definitely confident we have a useful strategy that delivers each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to assist them certify their content, access to premium product to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more openness for right holders from AI developers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a nationwide information library containing public information from a broad range of sources will also be provided to AI researchers.

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 intended to enhance the security of AI with, amongst other things, companies in the sector required to share information of the workings 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 instead, however he is said to desire the AI sector to face less guideline.

This comes as a number of claims 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 comic.

They claim that the AI firms broke the law when they took their material from the web without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

The AI companies argue that their actions fall under "reasonable usage" and wiki.rolandradio.net are therefore exempt. There are a variety of aspects which can constitute fair use - it's not a . But the AI sector is under increasing examination over how it gathers training data and whether it must be spending for it.

If this wasn't all sufficient to contemplate, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It became the many downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store.

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

As for me and a profession as an author, I think that at the minute, if I actually desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weak point in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It is complete of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite difficult to read in parts because it's so long-winded.

But given how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm unsure for how long I can stay positive that my significantly slower human writing and modifying abilities, are much better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest developments in international innovation, with analysis from BBC reporters around the globe.

Outside the UK? Register here.