For Christmas I got a fascinating gift from a buddy - my extremely own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was entirely written by AI, vokipedia.de with a few simple triggers about me supplied by my friend Janet.

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

It imitates my chatty style of composing, but it's also a bit repeated, and extremely verbose. It might have exceeded Janet's triggers in looking at data about me.

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

There's likewise a mysterious, repeated hallucination in the type of my cat (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 composing services. My book was from BookByAnyone.

When I contacted the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had sold around 150,000 personalised books, generally in the US, considering that pivoting from assembling 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 upon an open source big language model.

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

There is presently no barrier to anybody creating one in anybody's name, including celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is imaginary, produced by AI, and developed "entirely to bring humour and happiness".

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

He hopes to widen his variety, creating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's created to be a light-hearted type of consumer AI - selling AI-generated products to human consumers.

It's also a bit frightening if, like me, you write for a living. Not least since it most likely took less than a minute to produce, and it does, definitely in some parts, historydb.date sound much like me.

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

"We need to be clear, when we are discussing data here, we actually imply human developers' life works," states Ed Newton Rex, creator of Fairly Trained, which campaigns for AI firms to regard 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 learn 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 networks 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 nominate it for a Grammy award. And even though the artists were fake, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not believe using generative AI for creative functions must be prohibited, however I do think that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without consent should be banned," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be extremely effective but let's build it ethically and relatively."

OpenAI states Chinese rivals utilizing 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 - consisting of the BBC - have actually picked to obstruct AI designers from trawling their online material 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 thinking about an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to use developers' material on the internet to assist develop their designs, unless the rights holders opt 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, journalists and artists.

"All of these things work without going and changing copyright law and messing up the incomes 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 tasks and a great deal of pleasure," states the Baroness, who is also a consultant to the Institute for bytes-the-dust.com Ethics in AI at Oxford University.

"The government is weakening among its best carrying out industries on the vague guarantee of development."

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

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

In the US the future of federal guidelines to manage 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 improve the safety of AI with, among other things, firms in the sector needed to share details of the functions of their systems with the US government before they are released.

But this has now been repealed by Trump. It remains to be seen what Trump will do instead, however he is stated to desire the AI sector to face less guideline.

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

They declare that the AI companies broke the law when they took their material from the web without their approval, and used it to train their systems.

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

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

DeepSeek claims that it established its innovation for a fraction of the price of the likes of 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 a profession as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I actually want a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the current weakness in generative AI tools for larger projects. It has plenty of errors and hallucinations, and it can be rather difficult to read in parts due to the fact that it's so long-winded.

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

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the biggest developments in international technology, with analysis from BBC reporters worldwide.

Outside the UK? Sign up here.