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

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

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

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

It imitates my chatty design of writing, however it's likewise a bit repetitive, and really verbose. It may have exceeded Janet's triggers in collecting information about me.

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

There's also a mysterious, repetitive hallucination in the form of my cat (I have no animals). And there's a metaphor on almost every page - some more random than others.

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

When I called the president Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he told me he had sold around 150,000 customised books, primarily in the US, because pivoting from compiling AI-generated travel guides in June 2024.

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

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody creating one in anybody's name, including stars - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around abusive material. Each book consists of a printed disclaimer stating that it is fictional, created by AI, and designed "solely to bring humour and joy".

Legally, the copyright comes from the firm, however Mr Mashiach worries that the product is intended as a "personalised gag gift", and the books do not get sold even more.

He intends to broaden his range, generating various categories such as sci-fi, and perhaps providing an autobiography service. It's designed to be a light-hearted type of customer AI - selling AI-generated items to human consumers.

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, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound just like me.

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

"We must be clear, when we are speaking about data here, we really suggest human developers' life works," states 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 works of art. 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 networks before being pulled from streaming platforms because it was not their work and they had actually not consented to it. It didn't stop the track's developer trying to nominate it for a Grammy award. And despite the fact that the artists were fake, it was still wildly popular.

"I do not think the usage of generative AI for creative purposes must be prohibited, but I do believe that generative AI for these functions that is trained on individuals's work without consent should be banned," Mr Newton Rex includes. "AI can be extremely powerful however let's develop it morally and relatively."

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 dents America's swagger

In the UK some organisations - consisting of the BBC - have actually selected to block AI designers from trawling their online content for training functions. Others have chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has partnered with ChatGPT developer OpenAI for example.

The UK government is considering an overhaul of the law that would enable AI designers to utilize creators' content on the internet to assist establish their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "insanity".

He points out that AI can make advances in areas like defence, healthcare and logistics without trawling the work of authors, journalists and artists.

"All of these things work without going and altering copyright law and destroying the livelihoods of the nation's creatives," he argues.

Baroness Kidron, a crossbench peer in the House of Lords, is likewise highly versus getting rid of copyright law for AI.

"Creative industries 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 government is undermining among its finest performing markets on the unclear guarantee of growth."

A federal government representative stated: "No move will be made till we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that provides each of our objectives: increased control for right holders to assist them license their material, access to premium material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for ideal holders from AI designers."

Under the UK government's new AI strategy, a nationwide information library containing public data from a vast array of sources will likewise be offered 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 safety of AI with, to name a few things, in the sector needed to share information of the operations of their systems with the US government before they are launched.

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

This comes as a number of claims against AI companies, and especially against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been gotten by everybody 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 material from the web without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

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

DeepSeek declares that it established its innovation for a fraction of the price of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and king-wifi.win threatens American's present dominance of the sector.

As for me and a career as an author, I believe that at the moment, if I really desire a "bestseller" I'll still need to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the existing weak point in generative AI tools for bigger tasks. It has lots of mistakes and hallucinations, and it can be quite challenging to check out in parts due to the fact that it's so long-winded.

But offered how rapidly the tech is developing, I'm uncertain the length of time I can remain positive that my substantially slower human writing and editing abilities, fakenews.win are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the most significant advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC correspondents worldwide.

Outside the UK? Register here.