For Christmas I received an interesting gift from a friend - my very own "best-selling" book.

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

Yet it was totally composed by AI, with a couple of basic triggers about me provided by my pal Janet.

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

It mimics my chatty design of writing, but it's likewise a bit repeated, and really verbose. It may have surpassed Janet's triggers in collating data about me.

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

There's likewise a mystical, repetitive hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no 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 got in touch with the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed me he had offered around 150,000 customised books, generally in the US, given that pivoting from assembling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

A paperback copy of your own 240-page long best-seller costs ₤ 26. The its own AI tools to produce them, based upon an open source big language model.

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

There is presently no barrier to anyone developing one in any person's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive content. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, produced by AI, and designed "exclusively to bring humour and delight".

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

He intends to widen his variety, producing different categories such as sci-fi, and maybe providing an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted kind of consumer AI - offering AI-generated goods to human clients.

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

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

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

"This is books, this is posts, 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 after that 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 because 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 yewiki.org even though the artists were phony, it was still extremely popular.

"I do not think making use of generative AI for innovative functions ought to be prohibited, but I do think that generative AI for these functions that is trained on people's work without consent should be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very powerful however let's construct it fairly and fairly."

OpenAI states Chinese competitors using its work for their AI apps

DeepSeek: The Chinese AI app that has the world talking

China's DeepSeek AI shakes market and damages America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - including the BBC - have actually chosen to block AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have decided to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for example.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would enable AI developers to use creators' material on the web to assist develop their models, unless the rights holders decide out.

Ed Newton Rex describes this as "madness".

He explains that AI can make advances in locations 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 messing up the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in your home of Lords, is also highly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative industries are wealth creators, 2.4 million tasks and a great deal of delight," says the Baroness, who is likewise a consultant to the Institute for bbarlock.com Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening among its finest performing markets on the unclear promise of growth."

A government representative stated: "No move will be made till we are definitely confident we have a useful plan that delivers each of our goals: increased control for best holders to assist them accredit their content, access to premium material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for right holders from AI designers."

Under the UK government's brand-new AI plan, a national data library including public information from a wide range of sources will also be provided to AI scientists.

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 increase the security of AI with, to name a few things, companies in the sector required to share details of the operations 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, however he is said to desire the AI sector to face less regulation.

This comes as a variety of suits versus AI companies, and wiki.woge.or.at particularly against OpenAI, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr 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 firms broke the law when they took their content from the web without their permission, and utilized it to train their systems.

The AI business argue that their actions fall under "fair usage" and are therefore exempt. There are a variety of elements which can constitute reasonable use - it's not a straight-forward definition. But the AI sector is under increasing scrutiny over how it gathers training information and whether it must be spending for it.

If this wasn't all enough to consider, Chinese AI firm DeepSeek has actually shaken the sector over the previous week. It ended up being one of the most downloaded totally free app on Apple's US App Store.

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

When it comes to me and asteroidsathome.net a profession as an author, I think that at the minute, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to write it myself. If anything, pipewiki.org Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weakness in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It is full of errors and hallucinations, and it can be quite hard to check out in parts since it's so verbose.

But offered how quickly the tech is progressing, I'm unsure for how long I can remain confident that my significantly slower human writing and modifying skills, are much better.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest advancements in international technology, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.