For Christmas I got an intriguing present from a friend - my really own "very popular" book.

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

Yet it was completely composed by AI, with a couple of basic triggers about me provided by my good friend Janet.

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

It simulates my chatty style of composing, but it's also a bit repeated, wiki.die-karte-bitte.de and really verbose. It might have gone beyond Janet's triggers in looking at data about me.

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

There's also a strange, repetitive hallucination in the kind of my feline (I have no pets). And there's a metaphor on practically every page - some more random than others.

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

When I called the chief executive Adir Mashiach, based in Israel, he informed 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 expenses ₤ 26. The company uses its own AI tools to generate them, based on an open source large language design.

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

There is currently no barrier to anybody developing one in anyone's name, consisting of celebs - although Mr Mashiach says there are guardrails around violent content. Each book includes a printed disclaimer specifying that it is fictional, produced by AI, and designed "entirely to bring humour and pleasure".

Legally, the copyright belongs to the company, however Mr Mashiach worries that the item is meant as a "customised gag present", and the books do not get sold even more.

He wants to broaden his variety, generating various genres such as sci-fi, and perhaps using an autobiography service. It's developed to be a light-hearted form of customer AI - offering AI-generated items to human consumers.

It's also a bit scary if, like me, you compose for historydb.date a living. Not least due to the fact that it most likely took less than a minute to generate, and it does, definitely in some parts, sound simply like me.

Musicians, authors, artists and actors worldwide have expressed 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 discussing information here, we really mean human creators' life works," says Ed Newton Rex, founder of Fairly Trained, which projects for AI firms to regard developers' rights.

"This is books, this is posts, this is pictures. It's masterpieces. It's records ... The entire point of AI training is to learn how to do something and after that 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 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 although the artists were fake, it was still hugely popular.

"I do not think using generative AI for innovative purposes should be banned, but I do believe that generative AI for these purposes that is trained on people's work without approval ought to be prohibited," Mr Newton Rex adds. "AI can be very powerful but let's construct it morally and relatively."

OpenAI says 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 picked to obstruct AI developers from trawling their online material for training purposes. Others have chosen to collaborate - the Financial Times has actually partnered with ChatGPT creator OpenAI for instance.

The UK federal government is thinking about an overhaul of the law that would allow AI developers to utilize creators' content on the web to help develop their designs, unless the rights holders pull out.

Ed Newton Rex explains this as "madness".

He points out 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 destroying the livelihoods of the country's creatives," he argues.

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

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

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

A government spokesperson said: "No relocation will be made until we are absolutely positive we have a useful plan that delivers each of our goals: increased control for right holders to assist them accredit their content, access to top quality material to train leading AI designs in the UK, and more transparency for best holders from AI developers."

Under the UK federal government's new AI strategy, a nationwide information library containing public information from a wide variety of sources will likewise be made readily available to AI scientists.

In the US the future of federal guidelines to manage AI is now up in the air following return to the presidency.

In 2023 Biden signed an executive order that intended to boost the safety of AI with, among other things, companies in the sector required to share details of the functions of their systems with the US government before they are released.

But this has actually now been repealed by Trump. It stays to be seen what Trump will do rather, however he is said to desire the AI sector to deal with less guideline.

This comes as a number of suits versus AI firms, and particularly against OpenAI, continue in the US. They have actually been taken out by everybody 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 material from the internet without their permission, and used it to train their systems.

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

If this wasn't all sufficient to consider, Chinese AI company DeepSeek has shaken the sector over the past week. It ended up being the many downloaded complimentary app on Apple's US App Store.

DeepSeek claims that it developed its technology for a portion of the price of the similarity OpenAI. Its success has raised security issues in the US, and threatens American's present dominance of the sector.

When it comes to me and a career as an author, I think that at the moment, if I truly desire a "bestseller" I'll still have to compose it myself. If anything, Tech-Splaining for Dummies highlights the present weakness in generative AI tools for larger jobs. It has lots of errors and hallucinations, and it can be rather hard to read in parts since it's so verbose.

But provided how rapidly the tech is evolving, I'm not exactly sure how long I can remain confident that my substantially slower human writing and modifying abilities, are better.

Register for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the greatest advancements in global innovation, with analysis from BBC reporters around the world.

Outside the UK? Register here.